LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

Theological    Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

BV    811    .D33    1871 

Dale,    James   W.    1812-1881. 

Johannic   baptism 

A      DONATION 

FROM 

c  a  a- 


/^i. 


'^: 


0 


.iff^ 


A 

'-■^.'. 

_^' 

■r 

A 

W^ 

\^ 

■^^ 

\     -' 

v.-^. 

,^ 

"1; 

ij 

■'•, 

Y 

■'-» 

■  i 

.,,- 

.j;^^ 


^0 


COLLEGES,  UNIVERSITIES,  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARIES,  SAY: 
"THE  BAPTIST  THEORY  IS  OVERTHROWN." 


'All  the  strongholds  op  the  theory  demolished,"  . 
'a  most  masterly  philological  discussion,"' 
'Appeal  to  usage  must  settle  the  controversy,"    . 
'Happy  and  successful  vindication  op  the  truth," 
'Despair  cannot,  logically,  continue  the  controversy," 


Vrof.  B.  M.  Smith. 
Prof.  J.  C.  Moffat. 
Prof.  J.  Packard. 
Prof.  J.   T.   Coojter. 
Prof.  W.  J.  Beecker. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminaky.— Pro/.  .7.  C.  Moffat,  D.D. 

"  If  there  is  to  be  an  end  to  controversy  on  a  point  of  philology,  this  is  the  way  to  reach  it.  I  have 
gone  over  the  whole  of  the  sheets  sent  me.  Fini.shed  in  the  style  of  what  is  already  done,  your  work 
will  be  one  of  the  most  masterly  philological  discussions  in  our  language." 

Theological  SEMiNARy,   U.  V.—rrof.  J.  T.  Cooper,  D.D. 

"  1  cannot  refrain  from  congratulating  you  on  the  happy  and  successful  manner  in  which  you  have 
vindicated  the  truth  in  relation  to  John's  Baptism.  If  any  regard  is  to  be  paid  to  reason  and  argu- 
ment, your  work  should  bring  this  controversy  to  an  e?irf." 

Theological  (Seminary,  Columbia.— Pro/.  J.  R.  Wikon,  D.D. 

"  The  sheets  have  interested  me  exceedingly.  In  every  instance  your  interpretation  of  Scripture 
appears  to  me  eminently  fair.  You  have  strained  nothing.  Your  discussion  of  the  preposition  V 
Is  the  very  best  I  have  seen  in  connection  with  this  controversy.  I  have  been  greatly  instructed, 
too,  by  the  manner  in  which  you  handle  the  cv  nvtinan  'AyiM  as  furnishing  the  leading  parallelism 
with  which  to  understand  the  ev  vSin.  I  heartily  approve,  too,  of  the  disposition  you  make  of  t:' 
Xfi(ar-(o,  and  of  Christ's  (and  others)  being  iv  n^tti/ian  Ayiw.  This  is  capital.  In  short,  you  send  to 
me  for  criticism,  I  reply  by  eulogy.    The  series  taken  together  consUlute  a  chain."    .    .    , 

From  Frqf.  Tl"»i.  S.  Plnmer,  D.D. 

"  Dr.  Dale's  work  on  John's  Baptism  will  be  very  able  and  meet  with  the  cordial  approval  of  the 
great  body  of  the  Christian  Church,  except  only  those  who  contend  that  baptism  cannot  be  rightly 
administered  but  by  the  application  of  the  person  to  the  water." 

Drew  Theological  Seminaky.— Pro/.  James  Strom,  D.D. 

"I  heartily  concur  in  the  general  conclusions  of  Johannic  Baptism,  and  rejoice  that  the  assumi- 
tions  of  the  theory  are  so  thoroughly  refuted." 


Theological  Seminary  (Lctheean),  Gettysburg.— ProK  S.  S.  Helimuckrr.  D.D. 

"  Johannic  Baptism  is  a  work  of  very  superior  scholarship,  of  much  logical  acumen,  and  of  im- 
portant results.  The  anthor's  investigations  arc  singularly  far-reaching,  exhaustive,  and  satisfac- 
tory. The  concrete  form  in  which  he  has  presented  much  of  the  discussinn,  cannot  fail  to  give  it 
additional  interest  to  the  popular  reader,  whilst  the  genial  spirit  wliicli  pervailcs  it,  makes  it  pleas- 
ant to  all.  It  is  tn  be  hoped,  in  view  of  these  investigations  and  results,  that  our  Baptist  brethren 
will  soon  cease  to  magnify.  We  cordially  recommend  this  volume  to  all  who  feel  an  interest  in 
radical  and  learned  investigation." 


"Assumptions  OF  THE  THEORY  THORouGHLv  RKFDTED,"  Prof.  Jamrs  Strous,  D.D. 

"Interpretation  of  .Scripture  eminently  fair,".  .  Prof.  J.  R.  Wilson,  D  D. 

"Cordial  APPROVAL  OF  THE  Christian  Church,"    .  .  Prof.  W.  S.  Phmier,  D.D. 

"Fully  proved  youp  point  ninety-nine  times,"     .  .  Prof. . 

"The  theory  is  exposed  and  demolished,"    .         .  .  Pres.  Willis  Lord,  D.D. 


Theological  Seminary,  ErrscoPAL,  Alexandria.— Pro/.  J.  Packard,  D.D. 

"  Johannic  Baptism  is  characterized  by  the  same  exhaustive  appeal  to  the  usage  of  /?n7rris'J,  and 
the  prepositions  connected  with  if,  as  your  previous  works.  This  appeal  to  usage  must  settle  the 
controversy,  if  anything  can.    I  shall  commend  all  your  works." 

Theological  .Se.minarv,  Hampden  Stdset.— Pro/'.  B.  M.  Smith,  D.D. 

•'  Your  scholarly  and  discriminating  view  of  John's  Baptism  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired,  whether 
for  sustaining  your  great  proposition  as  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  in  its  religious  as  well  as 
tropical  meaning,  or  the  interpretation  of  the  particles  which  are  combined  with  its  usage.  I  have 
been  particularly  gratified  by  your  triumphant  exhibition  of  the  local  force  of  Iv  when  connected 
with  /-)'uTri>co,  and  your  clear  and  forcible  presentation  of  tlie  power  of  f (',.  You  are  doing  a  great 
and  good  work  both  for  Scripture  exegesis  and  for  settling  on  irrefragable  grounds  the  meaning  of 
this  long-discussed  word." 

Western  Theological  Seminary.— P70/.  S.  J.  Wihon,  D.D. 

"I  have  examined  the  points  to  which  you  directed  my  attention,  and  it  seems  to  me  these  points 
are  made  good.  Your  discussions  open  up  to  me  a  new  world  on  that  subject.  To  me  your  argument 
is  intensely  interesting  and  carries  conviction  with  it.  My  appreciation  of  your  work  increases  with 
every  volume." 

Adbukn  Theolooical  .Seminary.— Prq('.  W.  -J.  Bccdier. 

"  You  have  invested  this  discussion  with  fresh  interest  and  increased  light.  The  view  given  of 
Mark  7  : 4  is  tenable,  and  the  translation  of  John  1  :  25  is  vindicated.  PaTrTia/xa  has  not,  in  my 
Judgment,  any  physical  usage  in  the  New  Testament.  And  the  usage  of  the  phrase  lii'nrnaita 
utriimiai  proves  that  fizTixvnia  is /ftft  dijfej-enfid  characterizing  Jcjhp's  baptism  as  distinguished  from 
other  baptisms.  It  is  imperative  that  £is  nftatv  ajinimwi'  be  taken  afe  the  verbal  or  ideal  element  de- 
manded by  paTTTinnn.  Your  reasoning  is  comidetc  as  against  the  current  Baptist  syllogism,  'ffaKrilto 
requires  an  enveloping  element :  that  element  can  be  nothing  else  than  water  :  therefore  the  water 
must  be  an  enveloping  element.'  You  have  conclusively  proved  that  something  else  not  only  may 
be,  but  is,  the  enveloping  clement.  That  iJanTito  so  controls  the. use  of  the  water  as  to  demand  en- 
velopment within  it,  you  have,  indeed,  exposed  as  pure  error.  In  view  of  your  discussion,  either 
with  or  without  the  emendations  which  my  present  views  would  require,  I  unhesitatingly  answer 
your  final  question,  '  Can  despair  prolong  the  controversy?'    Not  logically.'''' 

WoosTER  University.- Pirsident  U'.  Lord,  D.D. 

"  I  cannot  tell  you  with  how  deep  an  interest  I  have  read  th«  third  part  of  your  great  work  on 
Baptism.  In  my  view,  the  Theory,  as  you  gently  name  it,  is  exposed  and  demolished,  as  it  never 
has  been  before.  If  truth  can  end  it,  it  will  perish.  The  completion  of  your  work,  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  has  been  so  far  done,  ought  to  secure  you  the  grtratude  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ." 

,  rrofe^.<nr  of  Greek,  ^t 

'■  Johannic  Baptism,  from  its  very  extensive  and  minute  research,  its  closeness  and  keenness  of 
logic,  and  its  corruscations  of  humor  and  wit,  I  have  foujKt  very  interesting.  I  have  truly  marvelled 
at  your  patience  in  stopping  against  the  '  immcrsionists '  every  actual,  i)robable,  possible,  imaginary, 
improbable,  and  impossible  hole  ;  and  when  you  had  proved  a  point  ninety -nine  times,  still  proving 
it  the  hundredth  lest  some  one  should  fancy  that  your  work  was  not  otherwise  quite  complete.  The 
general  views  which  you  present  of  the  uses  of  //an-n',..)  and  ti-  (also  fi'O,  it  seems  to  me,  cannot  be 
refuted."  1' 

WM.   RUTTER   &   C6.,   Publishers, 

Seventh  and  Ciiekry  St.s.,  riiiLADELi'iuA. 
Price,  $4.00;  to  Ministers  $3.50. 


AN  INQUIRY 


THE    USAGE    OF    BAnilzn, 


AND   THE   NATURE    OF 


JOHANNIC  BAPTISM 


AS  ExmiiiTED  i:n 


THE  HOLY  SCKIPTURES. 


JAMES  W.  DALE,  D.D. 

PASTOK  OF  THE  WAYNE  TKESBYTEKIAN  CHUKCU,  DELAWARE  COUNTY,  PA. 


"  Renuente  pliilologia  in  Scriptura  Sancta  nil  auclendum." 
"  Scriptura  non  potest  intelligi  theologice,  nisi  autca  sit  intellecta  grammatice." 

Melancthon. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

WM.     R,  UTTER    &    C  0. 
18  Y  1. 


"  I  STAND  to  whatever  God  has  said;  what  men  infer  from  it  is  merely 
human  and  weighs  with  me  just  nothing.  As  a  Christian  I  think  I  can,  in 
my  poor  way,  defend  what  God  has  said ;  what  man  has  inferred  from  it, 
man  may  defend  if  he  can  ;  I  am  not  responsible." 

Wayland. 

"  The  meaning  of  a  Greek  word,  of  which  he  had  been  ignorant  till  then, 
suddenly  cleared  up  his  theological  ideas.  What  consolation  and  what  joy 
did  he  not  feel,  when  he  saw,  for  instance,  that  the  Greek  word  fieravoia^ 
which,  according  to  the  Latin  Church,  signifies  a  penance,  a  satisfaction  re- 
quired by  the  Church,  a  human  expiation,  really  meant  in  Greek,  a  transfor- 
mation or  conversion  of  the  heart.  A  thick  mist  was  suddenly  rolled  away 
from  his  eyes." 

Life  of  Luther. 

"A  DOCTRINE  of  grace  may  dwell  in  the  right  understanding  of  a  single 
preposition." 

LiLLIE. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  1S71, 

By    J  a  ii  e  s    W.    Dale, 

In  the  Oflice  of  tlic  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


CAXTON  PRESS  OF  .SHERMAN  &  CO., 
rillLADELnilA 


JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 


1. 

Baptist  Criticisms. 


American  Christian  Eeview;  Keligious  Herald;  Christian  Standard; 
National  Baptist ;  Kabbi  Isador  Kalisch ;  "Watchman  and  Keflector ; 
Christian  Quarterly  (Campbellite  Baptist) ;  Baptist  Quarterly ;  De 
Stourdza;  Lexicons, 19-69 


2. 

Various  Views  of  John's  Baptism. 

Early  Christian  Writers ;  Eoman  Catholic ;  Tractarian ;  Calvin ;  Light- 
foot;  Halley;  Dr.  Miller;  Professor  Wilson;  Baptist  Writers,  Sto- 
vel,  Carson,  Eobert  Hall ;  The  nature  of  Baptism,  its  diversity ;  Ben- 
gel  ;  Baptism  of  Moses ;  Baptism  of  John  ;  Baptism  of  Christ ;  Classic 
Baptism,  Baptism  of  Thebe,  Baptism  of  Ishmael,  Bai)tism  of  Satyrus  ; 
Basis  of  the  theory,  1.  Modal  action,  2.  Grammatical  relation  to  water 
such  as  to  require  and  expound  modal  use  in  Baptism ;  A  basis  un- 
proved and  unprovable, 71-90 


John's  knowledge  of  /3a?rr<Cu- 

Used  by  translators  of  the  Septuagint;  Used  by  the  writers  of  the 
Apocrypha ;  Used  in  Jewish  ritual  purifications  through  John's  en- 
tire ministry  and  life;  Josephus  on  John's  Baptism;  Shown  by  new 
terms  introduced  by  John  ;  ftatzTiarfj^  used  absolutely  ;  ^anTidfia  used 
in  ideal  and  not  in  physical  relations  ;  What  Baptism  ?  John  1 :  25 ; 
New  baptisms  introduced ;  Baptism  of  the  Mightier  One  ;  Baptism  of 
Kepentance ;  Baptism  of  fire ;  The  personal  Baptism  of  John  by  Christ 
by  the  touch  of  liis  hand ;  Baptism  of  John  by  his  own  blood  when 
beheaded  (Patristic), *8e-228      ^' 

(  vii) 


Vlll  JOHN'S   COMMISSION. 


John's  Commission. 

PAGE 

Commission  to  baptize,  John  1  :  33 ; ,  "Water  occupies  the  relation  of 
agency  to  baptism  and  not  of  a  receiving  element;  Augustin,  Hilary, 
Baptist  Quarterly;  The  Commission  illustrated  by  historical  allusion; 
"  The  Baptism  of  John  "  equivalent  to  "the  baptism  of  Eepentance;  " 
"  Baptism  is  not  one,"  Ambrose;  "  Baptism  of  Eepentance  "  expresses 
a  doctrine,  Christian  Standard  (Baptist),  Professor  Eipley,  Professor 
Hackett ;  Subjective  Genitive ;  Commission  illustrated  by  the  baptism 
preached:  "Eepent!"  "Baptism  of  Eepentance;"  Commission 
farther  developed :  "  Baptism  of  repentance  into  the  Eemission  of 
Sins  ;  "  New  Version  ;  Alexander  Campbell ;  Parallel  passages  out  of 
the  Scriptures;  "Design  of  Baptism,"  Alexander  Campbell;  The 
baptism  preached  and  the  baptism  administered,  one  baptism,  in  the 
one  case  actualized,  in  the  other  case  symbolized ;  The  Commission 
illustrated  by  the  ritual  baptism  administered  ;  New  Version  transla- 
tion; Want  of  consistency ;  Carson's  interpretation;  The  Commission 
illustrated  by  the  formula  of  baptism ;  Parallel  usage,         .         .     229-297 


5. 
Places  of  Baptism. 

In  the  Wilderness, Mark  1  :    4. 

In  Bethany, John    1  :  28. 

In  ^non,        John    3  :  23 

In  Jordan, ' Matt.  3:    6. 

298-373 


Baptism  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

"Upon  the  Jordan," Matt.  3  :  13. 

Having  come  to  the  Jordan, Mark  1  :    9. 

Manner  of  Baptism  (Patristic  Writers), 

374-406 

7. 

Summary. 

New  Testament  usage  of  pmTTiaT?/g,  ISnTVTia/in,  and  (iaTrri^u;  New  Testa- 
ment usage  of  ev  and  e'lg;  Their  discriminating  usage  in  baptism; 
Agreement  and  difference  as  compared  with  Classic  and  Jewish  usage; 
A  dipping  is  not  a  baptism ;  A  dipping  into  water  is  not  John's  bap- 
tism; There  is  no  exemplification  of  physical  baptism  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  The  word  ftdirria/xa  originates  in  the  New  Testament ;  New 


SUMMARY.  IX 

PAGE 

Testament  usage  must  determine  its  meaning  and  application;  The 
theory  finding  no  physical  baptism  has  attempted  to  make  one  out  of 
a  dipping;  Dipping  not  being  baptism,  and  if  it  were  there  being  no  . 
dipping  in  New  Testament  baptism,  the  theory  has  lost  all  baptism  as 
well  as  Scripture  baptism;  Pure  water  sprinkled,  poured,  or  other- 
wise applied  to  the  person  "to  make  manifest "  the  soul  baptism  of 
John,  both  maintains  the  Classic  truth  as  to  baptism,  and  fulfils  the 
symbol  rite  ordained  through  John;  The  "first  error"  of  the  theory 
is  twofold:  1.  To  baptize  =  to  dip;  2.  God  commands  "to  dip  into 
WATEE," 407-420 


DIVERSE  BAPTISMS. 


PAGE 

Baptism  of  the  Talmud, 23 

"  of  Triptolemus,          .........       36 

"       of  the  Greek  Church, 37 

"  of  the  Armenian  Church  ........       38 

"  of  the  Nestorian  Church,  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .38 

"       of  Wine, 58 

'•  of  Sophistry,      ..........       58 

"  Judaic,  Johannic,  Christian,     .......       73 

"  of  John,  of  Moses,  of  Christ,    .......       78 

"       of  Thebe,  of  Ishmael,  of  Satyrus, 79 

"       from  the  Market, .         .         .92 

"       of  Silenus, 99 

"       of  Bethesda, 99 

"       of  Pots  and  Cups, 107 

"  of  Couches,         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     110 

"  before  Meals,      ..........     114 

"  of  Noah,  of  Elijah,  of  Israel,   .         .         .         .         .         .         .11-1 

"       of  -^sop,  Lucian,  &c.,      .         .    , 120 

"       of  Plato,  Plutarch,  &c., 122 

"       of  Josephus, 125 

"       of  "the  Great  Baptist," 136 

"       of  the  Duke  of  Clarence, 150 

"  of  the  Mightier  One,          .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .151 

"       of  Fire, .         .         .204 

"       of  Greek  Classics, 208,  209 

"       of  Baptists,        .        .        .        '. 218 

"       of  Patristic  Writers, 220,  223 

"       of  Water,  &c.  (Classic), 273 

"  of  the  New  Version  (translation),     ......     281 

"  of  Kepentance,  ..........     287 

"  of  Classic,  Jewish,  and  Patristic  Writers,         ....     368 


(^) 


PASSAGES   OF   SCRIPTUEE  EXAMINED. 


Matthew  3:11,. 
Matthew  3: 11;  Mark  1 : 

3:16,  . 
Matthew  3  :  13,  . 
Matthew  3  :  14,  . 
Matthew  9  :  34,  . 
Matthew  21  :  25, 
Mark  1:4;  Luke  3  :  3, 

:  4 ;  John  1  :  28 ; 

:7,8, 

:9, 

:16, 

37,  38, 


Mark  1  ; 
Mark  1  : 
Mark  1  : 
Mark  7  : 
Luke  3 : 
Luke  11 
John  1 :  25, 
John  1  :  33, 
John  3  :  22,  23, 
Eomans  9:1, 
II  Kinas  5  :  14, 


PAGE 

156,  196,  198 
8 ;  Luke 

.  267 
.  374 
.  216 
.  192 
.  140 
.     252 

10 :  40,  298 
.  151 
.  377 
92,  107 
.  151 
.  119 
.  145 
151,  229 
.  309 
.  187 
.     398 


"Wisdom  of  Solomon. 


APOCKYPHA. 

ESPEAS. 

1 :  40,  53,  55,  57 ;  5  :  50;  8  :  82,       163 

TOBIT. 

1:  18;  2:5;  9:  5;  13:  16,  17,  .     164 

Judith. 

1  :  12,  13,  15,  19,  .  .  .  164 
6:4;  7:  14,21,25;  8:33;  9:8, 

10;  12:4,  .  .  .  .165 
13:8,  15;  16:1,4,5,6,7,8,13; 

4:9 166 


19:8, 


160 


Wisdom  of  Sirach. 
28:18;  34:26, 168 

Bel  and  Dragon. 
1:11,  14, 168 

SEPTUAGINT. 

Passages  of  Scripture^  illustrative 
of  the  use  of  h. 

Exodus  32:  11,  .         .         .  .     159 

jST umbers  10  :  46,         .         .  .     162 

Deuteronomy  29  :  28 ;  4  :  34,  .     162 

III  Kings  19  :  11,  12,         .  .     162 

Psahn  2:5,         .         .         .  .161 

Isaiah  54 :  8,       .         .         .  .162 

Jeremiah  34  :  8;  51  :  12,  13,  .     162 

Habakkuk  3:2,          .         .  .162 

Matthew,   ....  169,  170 


Komans  1  :  4, 
Revelation, 


.     158 
170,  171 


Illustrative  of  h  and  en;  with  Jordan. 

Ill  Kings  1  :  33,  38,  45,  .  .  345 
I  Thess.  4  :  16,  .  .  .  .346 
Iliad,  XVIII,  521;    Herod.,  I, 

76;  Xen.  Anab.,  IV,  8,  22,  .  352 
Xen.,  VII,  5;  III  Kings  17  :  7,  353 
III  Kings  17  :  3,  5,  .  .  .  354 
I  Kings  15:5,.  .  ,  .  356 
Psahn  83  : 10,    .  .         .         .     357 

I  Kings  15  :  13  ;  Jerem.  13  :  4-7,  •  358 

(  ^i   ) 


xu 


PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE    EXAMINED. 


PAGE 

Joshua  3  :  8,  13, 

.     359 

Joshua  3:  11,  17;  4:3,  16 

n, 

18, 

.     3G2 

Joshua  4  :  19,      . 

.     3(33 

Joshua  4:5, 

.     3()4 

Josephus  Antiq.,  Ill,  10,  . 

.     367 

Polyb.,  V,  47,  2;  Plotinus, 

1,8, 

13;    Alex.   Aphrod  ,    11, 

38; 

Joseph.  Jew.  War,  I,  22, 

.     3G8 

Illustrative  of  h  UvFi'fiari. 
Micah   8:8;    Zech.  4:6;    Neh. 
9:  30;  Isaiah  4:4, 

New  Testament. 
Matt.    10:20;    22:43;     I    Cor 

12:3,      . 
Mark  12  :  36,      . 
Mark  13  :  11,      . 
Luke  2  :  27 ;  Acts  1  :  16 ;  28 :  25 

Romans  15  :  13,  16,  18,  19 


173 


175 
174 
175 

176 


ICor.  6:  11;  12:9;  Judc  1:20,     177 

Office  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
1  Cor.  12:—;  I  Peter  1:2,       .     178 


Illustrative  of  ftd-riG/ia  //fravo/nf. 

Matt.     21  :  25;     Mark    11  :  30; 
Luko   20  :  4 ;    7  :  29 ;    Acts  1  : 
22;  18:25;   19:4,.         .         .     236 
Phil.  4:7;    Rom.    4:  13;    Heb. 

3:  13;  6:2,  .  .  .  .245 
Matt.  3:8;  Luke  3:8,  .  .247 
Acts  10;  37;  13:24;  Matt.  3:1, 

2, 248 

I  Cor.  1:  17;  Matt.  3  :  1,  2,       .     251 

Mark  1:4;  Luke  3:3,       .         .252 

Illustration  from  Josephus,        .     259 

from  Clemens  Alex.,  .         .     261 

from  Matt.  8:11;   Mark  1 : 

8 ;  Luke  3:16,.         .         .  267 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  REFERRED  TO. 


Mcatt.  3  :  11 ;  Mark  1  :  -1;  John  3  :  23,     . 

Isaiah  11  :  1,  2;  48  :  IG;  John  3  :  34;  Luke  3  :  22, 

Matt.  4:1;  Luke  4  :  1 ;  4  :  14, 

Acts  2  :  22 ;  Heb.  9  :  14;  Acts  1:2;  4  :  26 ;  Luke  10  :  17, 
Mark  9  :  38;  Matt.  7  :  22;  Acts  3:6;  4 :  7,  10,  12,  30;  Matt 
Matt.  12 :  24,  27,  28;  Luke  11  :  20, 

Luke  1  :  17;  2:27, 

Matt.  22  :  43 ;  Mark  12  :  3G ;  I  Cor.  12  :  12,  13, 
Acts  1:5, 
Luke  3  :  IG,      . 


Acts  1  :  6,  8;  2:  4,  . 

Isaiah  28:  7;  Heb.  11:29;  I 

II  Cor.  5:4;  2:7,  . 

.Matt.  18  :  6;  II  Maccab.  12  : 

Eph.  5  :  26,      . 

Luke  1 :  76,  77, 

Luke  3:  3;  I  Cor.  12:  13, 

John  10  :  40,   . 

Kev.  1:15;  14:2;  17  :  1, 

Gen.  14':  7;  Joshua  15 :  7,  34, 

Ezek.  19  :  10,  . 


Peter  5  :  8 ;  I  Cor.  1 
4;  I  Tim.  6:9, 


Judith  17:  17;  II  Chron 

5:12;  Exod.  15:27, 
Ezek.  47:17,  . 
Luke  3:  2;  1:80,    . 
Matt.  3  :  13,     . 
Levit.  14:51,  52,     . 
John  3  :  34,      . 
Exod.  3:5,      . 
Matt.  3  :  6-13, 
III  Kings  1  :  33,  38,  45, 
I  Thcss.  4:16, 
John  1:28;  3:26;  10: 
Matt.  3:6,       . 
Ill  Kings  17  :  7,      . 
Ill  Kings  17  :  3,      . 
I  Kings  15:5, 


32 


40, 


62;  17:  11;  19:21 


4 ;  Wisdom  of  Solomon  10  :  18 


54, 


Ezek.  47 


9:34, 


Kint 


PAGE 
184 

189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
198 
279 
286 
290 
294 
295 
297 
302 
303 
304 
305 
310 
313 
314 

315 
322 
328 
331 
332 
835 
336 
337 
340 
346 
349 
350 
353 
354 
356 


(  ^iii  ) 


XIV 


PASSAGES   OF    SCRIPTURE    REFERRED   TO. 


Psalm  83  :  10;  Judges  4  :  13, 

I  Kings  15  :  13;  Jerem.  13  :  4^7, 
Josh.  8:8,. 

Josh.  8  :  15,  16,  17;  Luke  16  :  24, 

Josh.  4:3, 

Josh.  4  :  16-19, 

Josh.  4:5,        . 

Exod.  7  :  15,    . 

Tobit  6:1, 

John  3  :  22,      . 

Ill  Kings  2:8;  II  Kings  2  :  6 ;  6 

II  Kings  2  :  21 ;  Judges  4  :  7, 
Acts  8  :  40,       . 

John  20  :  19,    . 

Matt.  2  :  23;  Acts  12  :  19;  Luke  21 

John  9  :  7,  11, 

John  5:2;  Luke  3  :  4 

Matt.  3  :  13,     . 


37 


Matt.  21 


17: 


PAGE 

3.57 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
364 
874 
875 
384 
887 
388 
389 
891 
392 
393 
396 
404 


PRIHCBTOIT     ' 
htC.  NOV  1880 

AUTHORS   QUOTED   OR  REFERRED  TO. 


Alford, 

Alex.  Aplirod., 

Ambrose, 

-(Esop, 

Alcibiades, 

Arrian, 

Augustin, 

Arnold,  Prof.  A.  N., 

Alciphron, 

Apocrypha, 

Achil.  Tat., 

Akiba  Eabbi, 

Barclay, 

Basil, 

Beecher, 

Bengel, 

Beza, 

Booth, 

Calvin, 

Campbell,  of  Bethany, 

Campbell,  of  Aberdeen, 

Clem.  Alex., 

Coleman, 

Cox, 

Conant, 

Carson, 

Cod.  Sin., 

Cyprian, 

Cyril, 

Dagg, 

De  Wette, 

Douay, 

Didymus, 

Ebrard, 

Ellicott, 

Epiphanius, 

Ernesti, 


Eupolis, 

Eustathius, 

Fair  bairn, 

Eirmilian, 

Euller, 

Gale, 

Godwin, 

Grotius, 

Gregory, 

Hodge, 

Heliodorus, 

Hippolytus, 

Halley, 

Hall, 

Hackett, 

Hilary, 

Heracleon, 

Harrison, 

Ingham, 

Irenteus, 

Jelf, 

Jerome, 

Jewett, 

Josephus, 

John  of  Dam., 

Kuinol, 

Kuhner, 

Kalisch,  Eabbi  Isidor, 

Lange, 

Lexicons, 

Lexicographers, 

Le  Nourry,  Alex.  D., 

Lightfoot, 

Lucian, 

Matthies, 

Maimonides, 

Martyr,  Justin, 

(   XV) 


XVI 


AUTHORS    QUOTED    OR   REFERRED   TO. 


Meyer, 

Morrill, 

Onkelos,  Targum  of, 

Olshausen, 

Origen, 

Perkins,  Rev.  J., 

Plato, 

Plutarch, 

Philo, 

Pseudo  Jonathan, 

Plotinus, 

Polybius, 

Pviggs,  Pvev.  E., 

Eipley, 

Scott,  Sir  Walter, 

Stourdza,  Alex,  de, 

Stuart, 


Stovel, 

Septuagint, 

Sophocles, 

Schaaf, 

Shedd, 

Tertullian, 

Tischendorff, 

Themistius, 

Tyndale, 

Vulgate, 

"Wilson,  Prof.  E., 

Winer, 

Wetstein, 

Wood, 

Way  land, 

Xenophon. 


JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 


INTRODUCTORY  EXAMINATION 

OF  CKITICISMS  AND  OF  SOME  THINGS  ADJACENT. 

JoHANNic  Baptism  now  claims  our  attention.  But  before 
entering  upon  the  direct  consideration  of  this  subject,  there 
are  some  things  suggested  by  friends  of  the  theory  in  their 
notices  of  the  Inquiry,  as  thus  far  prosecuted,  which  claim 
attention.  Passing  by  the  elegant  sneer  and  the  supercilious 
contempt  (which  has  now  become  so  much  a  part  of  the 
theory  that  it  is  looked  for  as  a  matter  of  course),  and  cheer- 
fully confessing  that  this  shower  of  expletives  falls  more 
worthily  on  myself  than  upon  those  who  have  gone  before 
me,  I  proceed  to  matters  more  iinportant  to  the  merits  of 
the  subject.  Very  earnest  complaint  has  been  made  that 
nothing  has  been  said  about  Lexicons;  undoubting  confi- 
dence has  been  expressed  in  the  worth  of  Talmudic  tradi- 
tions; and  the  judgment  of  a  worthy  Russian  councillor  has 
been  offered  as  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter. 

It  is  most  true,  that  in  this  Inquiry  but  little  has  been  said 
about  Lexicons,  and  but  little  reference  has  been  made  to  the 
authority  of  the  wise  and  the  good.  And  this  has  been  said 
to  be  the  result  of  ignorance.  Perhaps  it  was  so.  But  hap- 
pily for  the  relief  of  one  so  ignorant  there  comes  from  the 
wisest  and  the  best  the  acknowledorment  that  hio;her  than 
they,  and  rightful  claimant  to  supreme  homage  from  all,  is 
the  Usage  of  language.  To  this  appeal  has  been  made.  The 
language  of  Plato  and  of  Plutarch,  of  Josephus  and  of  Philo 
has  been  quoted  as  expository  of  their  understanding  of  the 
use  and  meaning  of  words.  My  office  has  been  a  very  hum- 
ble one;  that,  simply,  of  quotation,  of  comparison,  and  of 

2  (  17  ) 


18  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

analysis.  If  quotation  has  not  been  made  correctly,  if  com- 
parison has  not  been  made  fairly,  if  analysis  has  not  been 
made  thoroughly,  the  facts  still  remain  out  of  which  error 
may  be  rebuked  and  truth  may  be  vindicated.  The  hardest 
blow  which  a  wrongdoer  can  receive  is  from  the  proof  that 
he  has  done  wrong.  The  whip  whose  thongs  are  made  up 
of  charges  of  "ignorance,"  and  "idiocy,"  and  "pedantry," 
and  "imposture,"  and  "impudence,"  and  "insolence,"  may, 
perchance,  hurt  the  smiter  quite  as  badly  as  the  smitten. 

But  while  Lexicon  and  Talmudic  tradition  may  be  fairly 
omitted  when  determining  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  the 
highest  authority,  still  some  notice  may  be  given  to  these 
sources  of  information  when  relied  upon  by  others,  and 
thrust  prominently  forward  by  them  into  notice.  This  will, 
now,  be  done  in  connection  with  a  brief  glance  at  some 
notices,  from  Baptist  sources,  of  this  Inquiry  as  already 
developed. 

AMERICAN   CHRISTIAN    REVIEW. 

"Mr.  Dale,  the  author  of  Judaic  Baptism,  is  a  clear  and 
vigorous  writer,  courteous  and  respectful  to  those  who  differ 
from  him,  and  discusses  the  question  of  the  action  of  baptism 
with  some  degree  of  candor  and  ability. 

"He  argues  that  it  is  not  a  specific  word,  and  therefore 
has  no  clearly  defined  modal  signification.  In  the  estimation 
of  Mr.  Dale,  baptizo  does  not  express  action,  but  rather  con- 
dition. He  says,  '  It  utterly  rejects  modal  act  as  its  mean- 
ing.' '  It  shows,  in  the  most  absolute  manner,  the  meaning 
to  be  a  condition  effected  by  an  unexpressed  act.' 

"  If  he  will  pardon  us,  we  feel  like  expressing  the  opinion, 
that  the  argument  throughout,  whether  intended  or  not,  is 
an  effort  to  obscure  the  plain  and  simple  meaning  of  a  posi- 
tive ordinance  of  Christ,  and  to  darken  counsel  by  a  show 
of  learning  and  by  a  multitude  of  words  without  knowl- 
edge. We  have  not  examined  it  sufficiently  for  an  elaborate 
review." 

The  first  paragraph  is  quoted  to  deal  fairly  with  the  theory. 
The  debit  and  the  credit  side  of  the  account  should  be  fairly 


.EXAMINATIONS    OF   CRITICISMS.  19 

posted.  "Whatever  of  relative  value  should  be  given  to 
"  clearness,"  "  vigor,"  "  respectful,"  "  candor,"  "  ability," 
as  over  against  "  idioc}^"  "trickery,"  "insolence,"  "sophis- 
try," and  "  ignorance,"  I  leave  to  be  settled,  without  appeal, 
by  those  who  thus  differ  about  the  "  Inquiry,"  and  yet  differ 
no  more  as  to  this,  than  they  differ  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  dispute. 

The  second  paragraph  is  quoted  in  order  to  show  that  the 
representation  given  of  the  theory,  namely,  that  it  declares 
[iar.zi^u)  to  express  a  specific  act  to  be  done,  and  not  a  specific 
condition  to  be  effected  by  any  competent  act,  is  accepted 
as  a  correct  statement.  It  is  not  easy  to  secure  this  confes- 
sion. It  is  simply  impossible  to  get  any  one  to  stand  by  it 
w^hen  it  is  made.  Even  the  honest  and  courageous  Carson 
shrinks  from  meeting  the  issues.  And  the  bold  and  confi- 
dent Campbell,  of  Bethany,  dare  not  follow  the  confession 
to  its  logical  end.  Whether  Dr.  Conant,  who  has  brought 
so  much  labor  and  learning  to  bear  upon  this  word,  makes 
such  admission  as  to  its  character,  it  would,  perhaps,  be 
venturesome  to  say,  since  he  has  said  so  much  on  both 
sides ;  but  there  is  no  peril  in  saying  that  he  has  made  no  at- 
tempt to  maintain  it.  But  whatever  else  may  be  said  about 
it,  this  is  true;  that  just  here  is  the  pulsating  point  in  the 
life  of  this  controversy,  and  hence  must  the  theory  draw  its 
legitimate  life-development,  or  here,  under  the  piercing 
sword  of  truth,  perish. 

The  third  paragraph  shows  what  has  characterized  every 
notice  of  this  Inquiry  from  Baptist  sources,  namely,  an  indis- 
position to  meet  the  issue  in  hand.  Classic  Baptism  presented 
a  distinct  and  well-defined  issue.  In  its  discussion  there 
was  no  reference  to  "  the  ordinance  of  Christ."  Was  this 
sharply  defined  issue,  free  from  entanglement,  met  ?  There 
was  no  attempt  to  do  it.  Some,  in  wonder,  exclaimed, 
"  Why  he  has  not  so  much  as  stated  what  he  thinks  Chris- 
tian baptism  to  be ! "  And  others  said,  "  We  will  wait  and 
see  how  this  ends."  In  Judaic  Baptism  there  was  also  pre- 
sented an  issue  having  equally  clear  boundaries  separating 
it  from  "  the  ordinance  of  Christ,"  affording  a  field  to  deter- 


20  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

mine  the  usage  of  this  word  by  Jewish  unmspired  writers 
without  once  touching  the  distracting  element  of  "  the  ordi- 
nance." Has  there  been  anj  attempt  made  to  rebut  the 
evidence  sustaining  the  usage  claimed  for  this  word  by  these 
writers  ?  There  has  been  none.  At  least  none  better  than 
that  of  the  "  American  Christian  Review,"  a  lament  over 
"  an  effort  to  obscure  the  plain  and  simple  meaning  of  a 
positive  ordinance  of  Christ,"  about  which  ordinance  not 
one  word  was  said ! 

RELIGIOUS   HERALD. 

"  We  have  neither  time,  space,  nor  inclination  to  review 
Judaic  Baptism. 

"  We  had  hoped  that  the  Doctor  would  stick  to  his  first 
definition  of  baptizo.  It  was  interesting  and  instructive  to 
observe  the  precision  with  which  merse  (or  immerse  as  we 
use  it)  answered  to  baptizo  through  all  its  variations  in  Greek 
literature. 

"  We  are  really  desirous  to  know  to  what  conclusion  Dr. 
Dale  proposes  to  conduct  us." 

The  Religious  Herald  concluded  a  long  review  of  Classic 
Baptism  by  saying,  "  We  can'  only  promise  that  should  life, 
and  strength,  and  opportunity  be  allowed  us,  and  should  we 
be  able  to  procure  the  forthcoming  volumes,  we  will  give 
them  a  candid  notice.  Here,  for  the  present,,  we  take  re- 
spectful leave  of  Mr.  Dale." 

Willing  to  submit  the  results  of  our  inquiry  to  any  fiiir 
criticism,  and  especially  pleased  to  have  the  intelligent  judg- 
ment of  those  holding  different  views,  this  proposal  of  the 
Herald  to  review  Judaic  Baptism,  "  should  life,  and  strength, 
and  opportunity  allow,  and  a  book  be  procurable,"  was  met 
by  forwarding  an  early  copy  of  that  work.  But  somehow 
or  other  there  was  no  review.  The  reason  assigned  was, 
not  that  a  copy  was  not  procurable;  its  reception  was  ac- 
knowledged. It  was  not  that  "  life,  or  strength,  or  opportu- 
nity" had  proved  treacherous;  but  "time,  and  space,  and 
inclination"  were  lacking.  How  this  latter  trio  happened 
to  take  the  place  of  the  former  triplet  I  cannot  say.     The 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  21 

case,  however,  is  mainly  remarkable  only  as  being  ditto  to 
a  number  of  other  cases.  Copies  of  Judaic  Baptism  were 
sent  to  leading  Baptist  periodicals,  but  if  one  of  them  (ex- 
cept the  Religious  Herald)  has  done  so  much  as  to  acknowl- 
edge the  reception  of  a  copy,  it  is  more  than  has  come  to 
my  knowledge.  Every  one  must  select  their  own  line  of 
policy.  And  if  this  be  the  policy  of  the  friends  of  the  theory, 
no  one  has  a  right  to  interfere  with  it.  And  the  discourtesy 
of  interfering  with  it  even  in  appearance,  by  sending  a  copy 
of  the  present  volume  will,  probably,  not  be  committed. 

There  is  as  much  fairness,  perhaps,  as  could  be  expected 
from  one  not  feeling  his  cause  to  be  strong  in  truth,  in  the 
statement,  that  Judaic  Baptism  abandons  the  definition 
given  of /JaTTTj'Cw  in  Classic  Baptism.  The  Herald  had  before 
it  (in  the  book  which  it  reviewed  through  nine  columns),  on 
p.  135,  the  following  definition  formally  stated:  "I  would 
define /JaTTTtTw  to  mean  primarily,  1.  To  intuspose;"  which 
general  statement  of  the  thought  is  illustrated  by  five  more 
specifically  defining  terms,  and  one  by  appropriation.  "  2. 
To  influence  controllingly:"  "Which  general  thought  is 
illustrated,  also,  by  five  other  terms  defined  specifically,  as, 
also,  an  appropriation  growing  out  of  this  secondary  sense. 
It  is  farther  stated,  that  to  stupefy^  to  bewilder,  to  pollute^  to 
purify,  &c.,  are  correct  defining  terms  of  the  Greek  word. 
Was  it  in  view  of  this  definition  that  the  Herald  said,  that 
merse — immerse  was  the  defining  term  "  through  all  varia- 
tions in  Greek  literature?"  Is  it  said,  that  "merse"  is 
used  in  all  the  translations  where  ^ar.T'Xuj  occurs?  That  is 
most  true;  but  it  is  also  most  expressly  stated  (p.  132),  that 
this  word  entirely  fails  to  express  the  thought  of  the  Greek 
word  in  primary  use  where  infuence  is  to  be  developed;  that 
it  fails  to  express  it  in  secomlary  use ;  and  that  it  fails  to  ex- 
press it  in  absolute  use.  But  as  it  expresses  the  idea  of 
/SaTTTttw,  to  some  extent,  in  its  primary  use  (and  no  word  in 
the  English  language  does  it  throughout),  it  was  used  in  all 
translations  to  represent,  not  to  define,  the  Greek  word. 

I  would  not  make  this  statement  if  it  were  not  that  others 
also  had,  for  some  cause,  found  it  more  agreeable  to  substi- 


22  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

tute  their  own  statement  in  this  matter  for  that  given  in 
Classic  Baptism. 

As  to  the  "  conclusion  to  which  Mr.  Dale  proposes  to  con- 
duct the  Herald,"  I  would  say,  Mr.  Dale  knows  nothing 
about  the  road  or  the  end  except  as  marked  by  the  foot- 
prints of  the  word.  His  business  is  to  track  the  word.  He 
has  not  "proposed  to  conduct '^  the  Herald  through  Classic 
or  Jewish  paths.  BannCcu  has  been  the  conductor.  I  pro- 
pose again  to  place  myself  under  the  same  sure  guidance, 
having  no  "conclusion"  of  my  own,  and  if  the  Herald  will 
bear  me  company,  we  will  together  find  such  conclusion  as 
John's  use  of  the  word  shall  conduct  us  to. 

CHRISTIAN    STANDARD. 

The  Christian  Standard  contains  a  review  of  Classic  Bap- 
tism extending  through  several  numbers  and  covering  some 
dozen  columns.  The  goodnaturedness  of  the  writer  shows 
that  he  would  not  willingly  harm  any  one,  and  disarms  any 
one  of  all  wish  to  harm  him.  The  errors  of  the  review  are 
so  many,  so  varied,  and  so  patent,  as  to  preclude  all  discus- 
sion. The  review  reminds  one  of  the  profound  skill  of  those 
engineers  whom  Napoleon  encountered  in  his  Egyptian 
campaign,  who  planted  their  cannon  so  as  to  be  immovable, 
and  which  the  Great  Captain  made  worthless  by  changing 
the  line  of  his  approach.  The  likeness,  however,  is  not 
without  a  difference.  Those  guns  were  shotted,  and  origi- 
nally pointed  against  the  enemy;  but  the  guns  of  the  review 
have  their  muzzles  toward  the  earth,  toward  the  sky,  toward 
the  right  of  Classic  Baptism,  toward  the  left  of  Classic  Bap- 
tism, and  when  the  fusillade  is  over,  the  enemy  is  found  in 
front,  smiling  at  the  engineering  wit,  and  admiring-  the 
pyrotechnics  of  unshotted  guns. 

NATIONAL   BAPTIST. 

In  an  article  headed  "  Dr.  Dale  and  the  Jewish  Rabbi," 
the  National  Baptist  remarks:  "We  only  wish  to  say  that  a 
modern  Jewish  Rabbi  has  been  studying  the  subject  of  bap- 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  23 

tism,  and  he  reaches  a  very  different  conckision  from  Dr. 
Dale.  Rabbi  Isidor  Kalisch,  of  I^ew  York,  writes  to  the 
Christian  Union  that  all  Christians  are  astray  on  the  form 
of  baptism.  'Baptism  has  been  for  thousands  of  years  a 
sign  of  admittance  to  Judaism.  It  was  adopted  as  an  initia- 
tory rite  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  religion.  All 
Christian  sects  perform  it  now  in  a  very  different  manner 
from  its  original  and  proper  form.'  'It  appears  from  the 
ancient  traditions,  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Talmud,  that 
proselytes,  male  and  female,  were  baptized  in  a  nude  state, 
and  by  a  submersion  of  the  whole  bodi/  in  water.  All  agreed, 
in  ancient  times,  that  immersion  of  the  whole  body  (not  the 
clothes)  in  water  was  necessary  for  a  new  member  of  the 
Jewish  or  Christian  religion.  There  was  no  sprinlding  of 
ivater,  as  can  be  seen  by  a  description  of  the  baptism  which 
was  performed  by  John.  Yes,  the  Greek  expression  bajjfisjna, 
used  in  the  Kew  Testament,  shows  clearly  that  submersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  ivater  is  required.  It  is  certain  that  this 
ceremony  was  scrupulously  done  in  the  Jewish  style.  A 
real  baptizing,  or  bathing  of  the  body,  and  not  of  the  clothes, 
ought  to  take  place,  and  hence  male  should  be  baptized  by 
male,  and  female  by  female.  This  is  now  customary  among 
the  Jews,  and  has  been  from  time  immemoriaV 

"  We  commend  that  last  sentence  to  Dr.  Dale.  It  is 
almost  too  bad  that  a  man,  who  has  probably  not  seen  his 
book,  should  thus  summarily  upset  its  very  foundation,  and 
unqualifiedly  deny  its  chief  assertion.  We  are  not  disposed 
to  make  any  rash  promises,  but  we  shall  not  accept  the 
premises  and  conclusions  of  Judaic  Baptism  until  its  author 
has  satisfactorily  answered  Rabbi  Kalisch." 

If  the  National  Baptist  is  to  become  a  proselyte  to  the 
very  worthy  Rabbi  Isidor  Kalisch,  and  henceforth  be  addic- 
tus  jurare  to  whatever  this  new  "master"  may  teach,  it 
might  be  well  to  take  a  second  look  before  leaping  into  the 
dark. 

Has  the  ISTational  Baptist  accepted  that  last  sentence  com- 
mended to  Dr.  Dale,  to  wit,  "  This,  baptizing  men  and  wo- 


24  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

men  naked,  is  now  customaiy  among  the  Jews,  and  has  been 
from  time  immemorial?"  Is  the  error  too  "naked"  to  win 
acceptance?  Then  why  "  commend  to  Dr.  Dale?"  Was  it 
the  "submersion"  without  the  nakedness?  But  I  find  no 
rule  in  "  Starkie  on  Evidence"  which  allows  a  party  to  sift 
the  evidence  of  his  own  witness  on  the  stand  and  take  only 
what  suits  him,  and  reject  what  don't  suit  him.  Besides, 
your  witness  says,  "  the  submersion,"  in  itself,  is  worthless; 
that  submersion  with  the  clothing  on  is  only  a  baptism  "of 
the  clothes,"  and  not  "  of  the  body,"  and  therefore  is  not 
worth  a  straw.  Is  it  by  this  teaching  of  the  "  magister  "  that 
the  National  Baptist  "  swears  ? "  But  John  the  Baptist  and 
the  Apostles  surely  baptized  in  the  same  wa}' — "men  and 
women  in  a  nude  state."  Is  this,  too,  a  part  of  the  new  faith 
of  the  IsTatioual  Baptist  ?  Did  John  baptize  only  men  ?  If 
so,  who  was  his  illustrious  coadjutrix  that  baptized  the 
women  ?  It  has,  heretofore,  been  found  to  be  an  infinite 
embarrassment  for  the  theory  to  dispose  of  men  and  women 
coming  out  of  the  river  with  their  clothing  soaked  with 
water;  has  this  learned  Rabbi  been  introduced  to  solve  the 
difficulty?  And  is  the  solution  this?  Their  clothes  were 
not  wet  at  all;  for  men  and  women  to  be  baptized  with  their 
clothes  on  is  to  baptize  the  clothes,  not  the  body;  "they  were 
baptized  in  a  nude  state,  male  by  male  and  female  by  female." 
And  who  can  deny  that  this  meets  the  difficult}^  in  the  most 
absolute  manner?  A  way  has  been  found,  through  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Talmud,  by  which  men  and  women  may  be 
dipped  in  the  Jordan  without  moistening  a  thread  of  their 
clothing.  Let  no  one  hereafter  say — "  Wet  clothes !  "  But 
the  Rabbi  says,  "  It  is  certain  that  this  ceremony  was  scru- 
pulously done  in  the  Jewish  style,  by  the  Apostles"  as  well 
as  by  John.  With  the  permission  of  the  National  Baptist, 
I  would  like  to  inquire  of  this  witness,  What  female  (inas- 
much as  Paul  did  not  "lead  about  a  sister")  baptized  Lydia? 
And  while  the  witness  is  on  the  stand,  another  question : 
Rabbi  Kalisch,  do  you  think  that  there  were  likely  to  be  any 
children  in  the  household  of  Lydia,  or  of  the  Jailor,  or  of 
Stephanas,  and  if  so,  what  was  to  be  done  with  such  children 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  25 

of  proselyted  parents  ?  "  Children  are  generally  an  appen- 
dage to  households,  and  they  were  baptized  with  their  pa- 
rents." But  is  not  the  baptism  of  children  "a  rag  from  the 
lady  that  dresses  in  purple  ?"  In  other  words,  Did  you  not 
"borrow  this  practice  from  the  Romish  church?"  "Oh, 
no;  this  has  been  our  practice  from  time  immemorial;  '  for 
thousands  of  years'  before  the  church  of  Rome  existed  we 
baptized  little  children."  Well,  that  will  answer  on  that 
point,  unless  the  National  Baptist  should  enter  a  plea  against 
the  credibility  of  its  own  witness.  But  we  are  not  in  the 
habit  of  regarding  Talmudic  traditions  as  the  best  authority 
for  either  faith  or  practice.  I  would  like,  however,  to  ask 
of  the  National  Baptist  (which  has  introduced  a  witness  tes- 
tifying that  the  baptism  of  John  was  a  waif  picked  up  as  it 
was  floating  by  on  the  stream  of  Jewish  tradition),  what 
answer  it  would  give  to  that  old  question,  "The  baptism  of 
John,  was  it  from  heaven  or  of  men?"  This  question  both- 
ered the  Jews  when  it  was  first  asked.  It  may  not  bother 
this  Jewish  Rabbi,  now,  for  he  is  not  (as  were  his  ancestors) 
"afraid  of  the  people;"  but  it  might  be  supposed  that  the 
Christian  National  Baptist  would  hesitate  to  say  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  "  from  heaven,"  but  emerged  out  of  the 
turbid  flood  of  Talmudism. 

But,  Rabbi,  our  editorial  friend,  who  has  brought  you  into 
the  witness-box,  says,  that,  without  seeing  Judaic  Baptism, 
you  have  "upset  its  very  foundation,  and  unqualifiedly  de- 
nied its  chief  assertion."  Is  this  so  ?  Judaic  Baptism  "  as- 
serts" that  the  end  of  Judaic  Baptisms  was  ceremonial  puri- 
fication. Do  you  deny  this  "  unqualifiedly,"  or  in  any  other 
way?  "Certainly  not;  that  has  been  settled  with  us  for 
*  thousands  of  j^^ears.'  "  Judaic  Baptism  also  "  asserts,"  that 
ceremonial  purification  is  efifected,  indifl'erently  and  equally, 
by  various  acts.  Do  you  "unqualifiedly"  deny  this?  "I 
unqualifiedly  afiirm  it."  Judaic  Baptism  "asserts"  that 
/JaTTTtTw  is  used  in  the  narration  of  these  purifications  in  which 
diverse  acts  are  employed,  and  makes  this  (proved  to  be  true), 
the  foundation  for  the  farther  "  assertion,"  that  this  Greek 
word  cannot  be  used  to  express  a  definite  act,  and  must  be 


26  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

used  to  express  the  common  result  of  these  diverse  acts, 
namely,  ceremonial  purification.  Now,  have  you  upset 
("  without  seeing  the  book"),  or  do  you  claim  the  power  to 
"upset  this  foundation?"  "  Well,  the  way  in  which  you 
state  the  case  puts  another  aspect  on  the  matter.  "When  my 
Baptist  friend,  here,  called  me  to  his  help,  he  told  me  that 
you  gave  no  meaning  to  '  baptize,'  and  that  it  might  be  '  sig- 
nificant or  nonsensical,'  'anything  or  nothing,'  or  might  just 
as  well,  or  a  little  better,  have  been  left  'blank.'  And  I  told 
him  that  Jewish  practice  in  the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  by 
submersion  in  a  nude  state.  But,  now  that  I  have  seen  your 
book,  I  perceive  that  you  have  said  nothing  about  proselyte 
baptism,  and  made  no  denial  of  ^ ew'ish  practice  in  receiving 
proselytes."  l^o;  I  have  done  neither;  and  for  the  very 
simple  reason  that  up  to  the  time  of  John,  in  following 
§anriz,u>  to  know  its  meaning  from  usage,  I  have  never  met 
with  it  as  used  by  a  Jew  in  connection  with  any  proselyte 
baptism.  But  I  would  take  it  as  a  very  special  fiivor  if  you 
would  point  out  a  few  of  such  cases  that  I  might  examine 
them.  "  There  are  no  such  cases."  Well,  any  time  during 
John's  ministry.  "  There  are  none.  The  subject  is  not 
mentioned  by  Philo  or  Josephus,  or  by  the  Targuras  of 
Onkelos  or  Jonathan.  But  it  is  mentioned  in  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud,  written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century,  and 
by  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  written  in  the  fifth  century,  and 
by  Pseudo-Jonathan,  who  wrote  in  the  seventh  or  eighth 
century,  and  by  Maimonides,  in  the  twelfth  century.  But 
we  have  no  doubt  at  all, /rom  our  traditions,  that  proselyte 
baptism  was  practiced  a  thousand  years  before  John  was 
born."  Have  you  been  able  to  satisfy  the  learned  world  of 
the  truth  of  such  tradition?  "Not  exactly."  Is  there  any 
agreement  among  learned  men,  outside  of  the  traditionists, 
as  to  the  existence  of  proselyte  baptism  in  the  time  of  John  ? 
"  I  must  confess  that  there  is  not."  I  hope,  then,  you  will 
hold  me  excusable  for  not  mentioning  among  Jewish  bap- 
tisms, of  written  record,  that  proselyte  baptism  which,  if  it 
has  a  traditional  life  before  John,  has  left  behind  no  written 
monument  to  testify  of  its  existence.    Mj'  business  is  to  learn 


EXAMINATIONS   OF  CRITICISMS.  27 

the  meaning  of  ^ainKu)  from  its  use  in  the  writings  of  those 
who  understood  the  Greek  language.  I  cannot  cite  as  con- 
temporaneous writings  the  most  venerable  traditions  which 
crop  out  centuries  after,  even  though  they  claim  to  go  back 
so  far  that  "  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary." 
However,  as  our  friend  of  "the  National"  thinks  that  you 
can  upset  the  foundations  of  things  without  even  seeing 
them,  by  your  knowledge  of  this  word,  and  as  I  am  quite 
willing  for  error  to  be  upset,  and  myself  with  it,  so  far  as  I 
rest  upon  it,  please  give  us  your  views  of  this  much-debated 
^amiX.u),  "  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  much  to  say  about 
/SaTTTtTw."  Indeed!  and  why  not?  "I  am  a  Jewish  Rabbi. 
Jews  don't  write  in  Greek.  The  Talmud,  Babylonian  and 
Jerusalem,  the  Targums  of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  Pseudo- 
Jonathan,  and  Joseph  the  Blind,  as  well  as  Mishna,  are  all 
written  in  another  language."  Well,  this  is  not  a  little  sur- 
prising. Our  Baptist  friend  has  brought  you,  the  very 
learned  Ilabbi  Isidor  Kalisch,  forward  to  uj)set  the  founda- 
tion of  a  Greek  word  (established  by  the  usage  of  Greek 
writers  through  more  than  a  half  thousand  years)  by  means 
of  a  lever  whose  long  arm  is  weighted  by  centuries  of  Tal- 
mudic  traditions,  and  whose  fulcral  point  is  a  Hebrew  root ! 
Is  not  this  novel  ?  But  Jew  or  Greek,  tradition  or  record, 
let  us  learn."  What  is  this  Hebrew  word,  and  by  what 
alchemy  does  it  become  transmuted  into  Greek?  Will  you. 
Rabbi,  instruct  us  on  these  points  ?  "  When  we  speak  of 
baptizing  proselytes  we  use,  in  Hebrew,  the  word  7i5£0.  Some 
might  say  that  we  borrowed  this  word  ('baptize'),  in  this 
application,  from  Christians  or  from  John,  while  we  would 
claim  its  use  before  Christianity  or  John,  and  from  time  im- 
memorial, and  as  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word."  A 
discussion  of  your  right  of  proprietorship  in  this  word  since 
John's  baptism  might  involve  us  in  all  the  intricacies  of  the 
sub  lite  question.  What  is  the  origin  of  proselyte  baptism  ? 
therefore,  passing  this  by,  please  inform  us  by  what  right, 
at  or  before  John's  time,  you  make  7DtO  represent  /SaTrrtTw. 
"  The  New  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha,  both,  show  that 


28  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

^anri^u)  was  used  to  express  Jewish  purifications  at  and  long 
before  the  time  of  John."  This  is  certain.  Now,  make  it 
as  certain  bj  contemporaneous  writing,  tliat  these  purifyings, 
baptizirigs,  were  called  iabalings,  and  in  what  sense  such 
designation  was  used.  "  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  the 
materials  for  doing  the  one  or  the  other."  Have  you  the 
materials  for  determining,  in  any  way,  the  meaning  during 
this  period  of  this  Hebrew  word  and  its  relation  to  the 
Greek  word?  "Yes;  the  Septuagint,  a  translation  by  Jews 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  Greek,  made  before  John  and 
current  in  his  day,  furnishes  such  material.  The  word  oc- 
curs in  the  Hebrew  Bible  some  eighteen  times.  It  is  found 
once  (1  Chron.  26  :  11)  in  composition  as  a  proper  name, 
signifying,  as  some  (Gesenius)  suppose,  '  Whom  Jehovah 
has  imrljiedJ  In  Ezekiel  23  :  15  it  is  applied,  in  a  derivative, 
to  a  head-dress,  with  the  meaning  cbjed.  In  Genesis  37  :  31 
it  is  translated  {iioXovw)  to  smear,  to  stain.  In  all  other  passages 
it  is  translated  by  fidTrrco,  except  in  II  Kings  5  :  14,  where  it 
is  translated  by  ^ar.ri^u).'^  It  appears,  then,  that  out  of  eigh- 
teen cases  of  usage,  it  is  untranslated  once  [Ta^Xai],  in  a 
proper  name,  having  as  supposed  the  significance,  loashedy 
cleansed,  purified;  once  translated  f/j/cc?  {TrapajSa-Td);  once  trans- 
lated stained,  and  in  all  other  cases  translated  by  jid-ru),  with 
one  exception,  where  fiar.ri'iuj  appears;  that  is  to  say,  it  is 
translated  by  fidnTta  fifteen  times  out  of  eighteen.  Now,  can 
you  tell  me  in  what  sense  the  Hebrew  word  is  used  these 
fifteen  times,  and  can  you  give  any  reason  why  there  should 
be  an  exception  to  the  otherwise  uniform  translation  in  the 
two  instances  you  have  mentioned  ?  "  There  is  little  or  no 
question  from  any  quarter  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  and  as  to  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  its  translation 
by  the  Septuagint  in  these  fifteen  passages.  There  is  com- 
mon consent  that  the  meaning  of  both  words  is  to  dip.  The 
translation  {ixuXuvw)  in  Genesis  37  :  31  may  be  accounted  for 
by  supposing  that  the  Hebrew  word,  like  the  Greek,  meant 
to  dije,  to  stain,  as  well  as  to  dip,  or  that  the  translators  chose 
to  express  the  effect  of  the  dipping  rather  than  the  act  itself. 
And  it  may  be  that  the  other  exceptional  case  (H  Kings 


•    EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  29 

5  :  14)  should  be  explained  in  the  same  way.     It  is  possible 
that  the  Hebrew  word  may  have  obtained,  as  some  (Gesenius, 
De  Wette,  Stuart,  and  others)  suppose,  the  secondary  mean- 
ing, to  wash,  to  cleanse,  to  purify.     The  Chaldee  Targum  uses 
the  same  word  (720,  to  ivash,  to  cleanse — Godwin)  to  express 
the  command,  'Go  ivash'  (rn^),  and  the  execution  of  the 
command  (^IJiO).     It  may  also  weigh  with  some,  in  assign- 
ing a  meaning  to  the  word  in  this  passage,  that  it  is  not  the 
performance  of  an  act  that  is  involved  or  commanded,  but  a 
purification  by  a  miraculous  healing.     In  view  of  all  the 
facts,  it  is  possible  that  the  translators  may  have  attributed 
a  secondary  meaning  to  the  word  in  this  passage,  as  iu 
Genesis  37  :  31,  and  expressed  that  meaning  by  (ianri^u);  or 
if  they  supposed  a  definite  act  to  have  been   performed 
(which  was  not  in  the  command),  they  have  preferred  to 
express  in  their  translation  the  effect  secured  and  not  the 
act  done.     Whether  Joseph's  coat  was  '  dipped'  or  not,  the 
Septuagint  was  right  in   saying  that  it  was  stained;  and 
whether  J^aaman  dipped  himself  or  not,  the  Septuagint  was 
right  in  saying  that  he  was  j^mijied  from  his  leprosy."    Then 
these  Jewish  translators  represent  the  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew word  to  be,  1.  To  dip,  2.  To  dye,  3.  Possibly,  to  cleanse, 
which  they  express  in  Greek  by  iSdnrw;  while  there  is  no 
sufhcient  evidence  to  show  that  in  the  single  instance  in 
which  they  use  (ia-Kri^m  that  they  designed  to  express  the  act 
of  dipping.    Are  there  any  other  translations  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  into  Greek  that  bear  upon  this  question  ?   "  Aquila 
translates  the  word  in  Job  9:31,  '■baptize  in    corruption.' 
Symmachus  translates  the    kindred  word  {'^2'0)  in  Psalm 
69  :  3,  *■  baptized  in  boundless  depths.'     An  unknown  writer 
also  translates  the  same  word,  as  Symmachus,  by  baptize. 
And  the  Septuagint,  translating  Isaiah  21 : 4,  terror  terrifies 
me,  not  verbally  but  ad  sensum,  substitutes  '  iniquity  baptizes.^ 
In  none  of  these  cases  is  there  expressed^he  specific  act  of 
dijjping  which  belongs  to  fidnzm."     Two  things  then.  Rabbi, 
appear  to  be  very  clear  from  your  statements :   1.  The  Jew- 
ish translators  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  understood  75tD  to 


30  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

express  the  specific  act  to  dip,  and  therefore  employed  (idr^Tco 
(which  iu  Greek  has  the  same  specific  meauiiig)  as  its  traus- 
hition.  2.  They  refused  to  translate  by  [ianriZio^  because  it 
did  not  mean  to  dip,  but  employed  it  where  no  definite  act 
was  to  be  expressed,  but  a  state  or  condition.  Will  you  now 
tell  me  wdiether  any  of  the  personal  washings  or  purifica- 
tions enjoined  upon  the  Jews  by  the  divine  law  were  ever 
expressed  by  7DiO?  "They  were  not."  Will  3'ou  tell  me 
what  is  the  word  which  you  find  in  Jewish  Greek  writings 
to  express  ceremonial  purifications  for  one  or  more  centuries 
before  John's  time,  and  reaching  to  his  time;  was  it  ^dnzu} 
or  fSartTi'^w?  "It  was  fiar.ri^u),  and  never  ^dnTw."  Do  you 
mean  to  say  that  that  word,  fidnTU),  which  the  Jewish  Bible 
translators  use  as  the  representative  of  ^3p  (while  they 
steadily  refuse  to  represent  it  by  [ianri'^u}),  is  never  employed 
in  ceremonial  purifications,  while  [iar^Ti^w  always  is?  "  Such 
is  the  fiict."  Then  you  confess  that  your  tabal-baptizing  is 
not  derived  from  the  written  law  of  Moses,  and  is  by  the 
authority  of  Jewish  translators  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
declared  to  be  an  unlawful  conjunction  of  terms,  except  as 
the  Hebrew  word  may  have  laid  aside  its  primary  significa- 
tion of  a  specific  act?  "  That  would  seem  to  be  a  fair  con- 
clusion. But  remember  that  Talmudic  traditions  are,  with 
us,  of  supreme  authority."  I  do  not  propose  to  meddle  with 
your  traditions.  Hand  them  over  to  our  friend  of  "the 
[National."  And  give  him  a  friendly  caution  against  "bap- 
tizing clothes ; "  as  also  against  forgetting  that  whatever  may 

be  the  character  of  the  Talmudic  ^Dip,  that  word  in  tlie  He- 
brew Old  Testament  is  not  quite  the  same  as  the  [iarM'^ot  of 
the  Greek  New  Testament.  And  now,  Rabbi,  if  "the  Na- 
tional" does  not  wish  your  presence  any  farther,  wo  will, 
with  thanks  for  your  information,  and  admiration  of  the 
manner  in  which  you  "upset  the  foundations,"  respectfully 
bid  adieu.     What  says  the  National  Baptist? 

The  National  Baptist  says,  "  The  cross-examination  of  wit- 
nesses is  a  nuisance.  Talmudic  traditions  are  as  good  as 
gospel  when  for  the  theory.     They  are  as  worthless  as  old 


EXAMINATIONS    OF    CRITICISMS.  31 

wives'  fables  when  against  it.  The  Rabbi  has  no  right  to 
say  that  our  baptism  is  worth  nothing  because  we  baptize 
*  clothes.'  He  has  no  right  to  say  that  the  children  of  prose- 
lytes should  be  baptized  with  their  parents.  He  has  no  right 
to  say  that  ^^D  is  not  §aTZTiZ<u.  He  can  go.  He  had  better 
never  have  come." 

VOCABULARY — THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY  TANG. 

In  a  second  article  the  National  Baptist  deals  so  largely  in 
.the  vocabulary,  and  in  that  theological  seminary  "  tang," 
heretofore  noticed,  that  we  could  almost  believe  that  the  pen 
which  wrote  this  second  article  was  dipped  into  this  same 
theological  seminary  ink-bottle.  It  reads  thus  :  "  And  now 
for  the  redoubtable  Dr.  Dale.  Our  horiest  opinion  of  Dr.  Dale's 
books  is  that,  besides  being  a  reproach  to  American  letters,  they 
are  a  direct  insult  to  Presbyterian  scholarship.  He  openly 
snubs  every  eminent  Presbyterian  writer  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  from  John  Calvhi  to  Alexander  Hodge."  "  Others 
show  some  honesty  and  principle "  (Dr.  Dale  shows  none). 
"  Dr.  Dale  is  a  mere  sophist  and  trickster."  "  He  is  shut  up 
to  solitary  seclusion  ;  all  the  thinking  world  is  outside.  "We 
have  no  wish  to  disturb  his  repose  and  egotism,  and  leave  his 
books  to  the  ridicule  and  oblivion  which  await  them." 

"Honest"  opinions  are  always  valuable.  They  show 
truthfully  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  utterer  of  them,  even 
if  they  do  not  show  truthfully  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the 
subject  embraced  in  them.  When  the  National  Baptist  says 
this  is  our  "  honest"  ophiion,  does  it  mean  to  say  that  the 
opinion  heretofore  expressed  of  "  Dr.  Dale  and  his  volumes" 
was  not  "  honest?"  That  there  is  some  difference  between 
this  "honest  opinion"  and  that  "free  to  say"  opinion,  the 
following  citations  from  an  earlier  number  of  the  National 
Baptist  will  show  :  "  Dr.  Dale  has  spent  a  great  deal  of  time 
and  labor,  and  no  small  ability,  in  investigating  the  subject, 
and  in  some  respects,  to  say  the  least,  is  entitled  to  speak  with 
confidciwe  on  the  subject."  "  To  observe  what  impression  he 
has  made  on  some  of  the  first  scholars  of  the  country  is  to  find. 


32       ,  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

evidence  that  the  work  is  worthy  of  careful  attention.  For  Dr. 
Jonathan  Edwards  says,  '  It  is  the  most  complete,  unanswer- 
able, and  amiable  treatise  the  Church  possesses  on  this  point.' 
Dr.  Thomas  H.  Skinner  says,  '  I  marvel  at  the  labor  and 
ability  shown  in  your  masterlj'  discussion.'  Dr.  Plummer 
says, '  Mr.  Dale  proves  that  Baptist  argument  has  no  weaker 
point  than  philology.'  While  similar  testimony  is  given  by 
Dr.  Hodge,  Dr.  Lyman  Coleman,  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith,  and 
many  others  prominent  in  different  poedobaptist  denomina- 
tions." "  The  deliberaieness  and  fulness  of  the  investigation 
challenge  our  admiration."  "  We  are  free  to  say  that  Mr. 
Dale's  labors  cannot  iwove  luorihless  or  unimportant.  He  has 
established  a  difference  between  ftdTtrco  and  /SaTrrttw.  He  has, 
also,  brought  clearly  out  what  our  own  examination  had  be- 
fore proved,  that  the  word  [[iaizri^uj)  does  not,  of  itself,  involve 
the  lifting  out  of  the  fluid  of  that  which  is  put  in." 

Which,  now,  is  the  "  honest  opinion,"  this  or  that?  Is  it 
thai  which  speaks  contemptuously  of  "  the  redoubtable  Dr. 
Dale,"  or  this,  which  speaks  of  "  the  author  of  no  small 
ability?"  Is  it  that  which  adjudges  the  volumes  to  be  "a 
reproach  to  American  letters,"  or  this,  which  declares  them 
to  be  the  "  admiration  "  of  the  editor?  Is  it  that  which  pro- 
claims them  to  be  "  an  insult  to  Presbyterian  scholarship," 
or  this,  which  announces  their  profound  "  impression  on  some 
of  the  first  scholars  of  the  country?"  Is  it  that  which  de- 
clares that  these  volumes  "  snub  every  eminent  Presbyterian 
from  Calvin  to  Hodge,"  or  this,  which  recounts  the  words  of 
praise  uttered  by  "  Edwards  and  Skinner,  Plummer  and 
Hodge,  Coleman  and  Smith,  and  many  others?"  Is  it  thai 
which  announces  the  labors  of  Dr.  Dale  to  be  those  of  "a 
sophist  and  a  trickster,"  *' Avithout  honesty  or  principle," 
"  without  thought  and  without  sense,"  of  one  who  dwells 
in  abandoned  "  solitude,"  a  lonely  "  egotist,"  and  whom 
"ridicule  and  oblivion"  arc  eager  to  swallow  up;  or  this, 
which  says,  "  the  labors  of  Mr,  Dale  cannot  prove  worthless 
or  unimportant;"  he  has  "  established  a  difference"  where 
Carson  of  Ireland,  and  the  Campbells  (of  Scotland,  and  of 
Virginia),  and  a  host  of  others,  declared  no  difference  to  ex- 


EXAMINATIONS    OF    CRITICISMS.  33 

ist;  and  "  he  has  brought  clearly  out"  (what  is  vital  to  this 
controversy),  "  that  liaxriZm  does  not  lift  out  of  the  fluid  that 
which  it  puts  in." 

These  are  the  match  horses  in  the  National  Baptist  "turn 
out."  Whether  the  very  worthy  editor  will  undertake  to 
mate  them  by  proving  the  white  horse  to  be  black,  or  the 
black  horse  to  be  white,  or  will  choose  rather  henceforward 
to  drive  on  with  a  parti-colored  team,  I  cannot  say.  And  I 
do  not  know  that  the  question,  "Whether  that  be  this,  or 
this  be  ihatf'  need  trouble  any  one  beyond  the  holder  of  the 
reins. 

3Iem. — "A  system  of  artificial  memory"  would  not  be  a 
bad  addendum  to  the  editorial  sanctum  of  some  folks. 

WATCHMAN   AND    REFLECTOR. 

In  contrast  with  "that"  opinion,  and  in  harmony  with 
"this"  opinion  of  the  ITational  Baptist,  is  the  following  lan- 
guage, full  of  characteristic  manliness  and  self-respect,  by 
the  Watchman  and  Reflector.  "Dr.  Dale  is  already  well 
known  as  the  author  of  '  Classic  Baptism.'  The  thorough 
discussion  of  the  subject  of  baptism  demanded  an  inquiry 
into  the  usage  and  nature  of  the  rite  among  the  Jews.  Dr. 
Dale,  in  the  above  volume,  enters  into  an  investigation  of 
this  part  of  the  subject.  It  is  not  our  purpose  at  this  time 
to  criticize  the  author's  work.  We  can  say,  however,  from 
the  little  reading  which  we  have  been  able  to  give  to  the 
book,  that  the  author  shows  a  large  acquaintance  with  his 
subject.  His  investigations  have  been  wide,  and  he  discusses 
the  various  points  with  a  candor  and  good  nature  which  are 
worthy  of  praise.  Differing  as  we  do  from  his  conclusions, 
we  can  yet  respect  the  ability  and  commend  the  spirit  which 
characterize  Dr.  Dale's  argument." 

When  the  friends  of  the  theory  cease  to  depend  on  "  the 
vocabulary "  for  support,  and  write  after  the  style  of  this 
extract,  they  will  lose  nothing  in  the  estimation  of  their 
readers. 

8 


34  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

CHRISTIAN    QUARTERLY    ("  CAMPBELLITE"    BAPTIST). 

In  the  January  number,  1871,  of  the  Quarterl}^  of  the 
Christian  or  Disciples  Church  (popularly  known  by  the  name 
of  Alexander  Cam.pbell)  there  is  a  review  of  Classic  Baptism 
occupying  forty-four  pages.  If  this  review  had  but  grasped 
the  merits  of  the  case  as  clearly,  and  discussed  their  issues 
as  fairly,  as  it  has  passed  over  the  ground  minutely,  there 
would  be  little  left  to  be  desired.  But  I  regret  to  say  that 
this  extended  review  has  carried  us  but  little  forward.  The 
positions  of  Classic  Baptism  are  not  even  confronted,  much 
less  answered.  The  errors  of  the  review  are  so  numerous 
and  so  elementary  that  it  would  be  as  unprofitable  as  it  is 
discouraging  to  attempt  to  point  them  out. 

A  fair  specimen  of  the  logic,  rhetoric,  imagination,  as- 
sumption, assertion,  and  extravagant  error  of  this  review 
(which  is  but  illustrative  of  the  theory  in  general)  may  be 
found  in  the  following  passage,  taken  from  pp.  83,  84  of  the 
review.  "  The  whole  object  of  '  Classic  Baptism'  is  to  lay 
down  in  the  end,  by  inference  or  in  some  other  way,  prem- 
ises from  which  he  can  infer  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
are  Baptism." 

This  grim  spectre  (imagined  to  stand  at  the  end  of  this 
Inquiry  and  evoked  by  the  fears  of  the  Reviewer)  seems  to 
frighten  him  from  his  propriety,  and  induce  the  assembling 
of  all  approved  instruments  of  torture,  ready  to  crush  bones 
and  to  dislocate  joints  whenever  any  threatening  demonstra- 
tion may  be  made  against  "dip,  and  nothing  but  dip."  The 
Reviewer  thus  proceeds:  "He  even  infers  from  a  garbled 
quotation  that  an  immersion  was  once  effected  by  a  sprink- 
ling. .  .  .  But  we  admit  no  such  conclusion.  The  passages 
which  he  quotes  contain  no  grounds  for  such  inference. 
Here  they  are :  '  Disgorging  the  sea-water  which  he  had 
swallowed  during  his  immersion  ; '  and,  '  The  boat  received 
the  shower  which  the  animal  spouted  aloft,  and  the  adven- 
turous Triptolemus  had  a  full  share  of  the  immersion.'  Was 
Triptolemus  immersed  ?  Does  a  '  share '  of  anything  amount 
to  the  whole  of  it?     It  is  not  said  that  he  was  immersed. 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  85 

The  very  reverse  is  affirmed.  He  only  received  a  share  of 
'  the  immersion,'  We  may  ask  what  immersion  is  here  re- 
ferred to?  For  the  immersion  must  mean  some  special  im- 
mersion. What  immersion  is  that?  But  one  immersion  is 
mentioned  to  which  an  allusion  can  be  made.  That  immer- 
sion is  the  immersion  of  the  animal  which  'spouted  aloft' 
'  the  sea-water  which  he  had  swallowed  during  his  immer- 
sion.' It  is  a  share  of  this  immersion  that  Sir  Walter  Scott 
referred  to.  The  animal  imbibed  a  large  quantity  of  water 
during  his  immersion,  w^hich  he  threw  aloft,  and  Triptole- 
mus  was  covered  with  it:  and  this  is  called  'a  share,'  'a  full 
share  of  the  immersion.'  .  .  .  The  Doctor  is  entirely  too  su- 
perficial ;  and  if  the  partisans  who  have  extolled  such  criti- 
cisms do  not  become  ashamed  of  their  own  eulogies,  it  must 
be  owing  to  their  theologies,  not  to  their  scholarship." 

Seldom  has  a  criticism  furnished  richer  elements  for  good- 
natured  merriment  than  does  the  above.  In  the  first  place 
the  writer  never  saw,  in  silu,  the  passages  quoted,  and  was 
profoundly  ignorant  of  their  connection.  And  yet  he  not 
only  ventures  to  elaborate  a  criticism  on  each  of  the  two 
passages  (making  a  context  for  that  unknown  one  w^ritten  by 
Sir  Walter),  but  in  doing  so  joins  together  two  passages 
w^hich  have  no  more  affiliation,  connection,  relation,  or  even 
propinquity,  than  fire  and  water,  or  the  zenith  and  the  nadir. 
In  this  venture  of  the  Reviewer  the  "garbled  extract"  is  a 
pure  myth,  the  affirmation  being  made  under  a  profound 
ignorance  of  the  real  character  of  the  passage ;  the  immer- 
sion of  "the  animal"  is  equally  mythic,  no  such  statement 
having  been  made  by  Sir  Walter;  the  profound  exegesis 
which  makes  Triptolemus  share  in  the  "  immersion  of  the 
animal"  will  be  found  valuable  when  it  proves  adequate  to 
reverse  the  adage  ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit;  as  there  is  nothing  of  the 
animal  immersion,  the  full  share  of  nothing  cannot  be  much. 
The  animal  of  the  Reviewer  (which  imbibes  a  quantity  of 
water  in  his  immersion,  and  spouts  it  aloft,  sending  down  a 
shower  of  brine  into  the  boat,  and  giving  Triptolemus  "  a 
full  share")  is  the  Pirate  Cleveland,  who  floats,  insensible, 
ashore  from   his  wrecked  vessel.     This   more   than   half- 


36  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

drowned  sailor  (who  by  the  help  of  a  brandy  stimulus  "  dis- 
gorges the  sea-water  which  he  had  swallowed  during  his 
immersion")  is  converted  by  the  Reviewer  into  a  whale 
gambolling  in  the  deep,  imbibing  its  brine,  and  generously 
sharing  its  deep-sea  immersion  with  Triptolemus,  the  Udaler, 
and  the  harpooning  boat's  crew  generally !  This  is  a  choice 
specimen  of  the  ad  nauseam  imaginative  immersions  of  the 
theory.  Their  grossness  does  not  always  admit  of  the  same 
patent  exposure  as  in  the  present  case,  but  their  absurdity 
is  none  the  less  real  to  every  sober  mind. 

This  mirth-inducing  error  is  in  nowise  due  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  two  passages  are  quoted  in  Classic  Baptism. 
They  are  not  quoted  as  illustrative  of  the  same  point.  They 
are  not  placed  even  in  juxtaposition.  The  first  (the  ship- 
wreck of  the  Pirate)  is  on  p.  200,  and  the  second  (the  shower 
immersion)  is  on  p.  209.  It  does  not  give  the  shadow  of  a 
vinculum  "uniting  them  together  as  referring  to  the  same 
transaction.  Their  being  brought  together  and  made  to  ex- 
pound one  transaction  can  only  be  explained  by  that  spirit 
of  audacity  which  leads  the  gambler  of  the  turf  to  shut  his 
e3^e3  and  select  a  racer  on  which  he  stakes  his  all  "  against 
the  field."  The  Reviewer  has  seen  proper  to  pick  up  two 
widely-separated  quotations,  and  blindly  wager  his  relia- 
bility against  infinite  odds,  that  these  two  passages  refer  to 
the  same  transaction.  He  has  lost.  The  most  audacious 
exposition  cannot  convert  a  drowned  sailor  into  a  spouting 
whale ! 

The  amusement  furnished  by  \\\\?,faux  ims  is  good  reason 
for  allowing  it  to  go  scot  free  from  any  severe  philippic.  It 
would  not  have  been  noticed  except  that  (in  all  its  extrava- 
gance) it  is  a  substantially  fair  example  of  the  reckless  in- 
terpretations of  the  theory. 

BAPTIST    QUARTERLY. 

In  the  Baptist  Quarterly  for  January,  1870,  there  is  an 
article  by  Professor  Albert  N.  Arnold,  of  the  Baptist  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Chicago,  on  Baptism  and  the  Greek 
Church.     In  this  article  he  casts  a  glance  of  sneering  pity 


EXAMINATIONS   OF  CRITICISMS.  37 

at  "  the  volumes  of  Dr.  Dale,"  but  passes  them  by  as  too 
leprous  to  be  touched.  But  reference  is  made  to  this  article, 
not  because  of  what  is  said  or  unsaid  of  these  volumes,  but 
because  of  some  things  adjacent.  Among  which  things  is 
the  following  testimony  (Appendix  to  The  Old  and  the  New> 
or  The  Changes  of  Thirty  Years  in  the  East,  by  Rev.  Wm. 
Goodell). 

"  Rev.  E.  Riggs  thus  describes  a  Greek  baptism  which  he 
witnessed  in  Smyrna  in  April,  1851 : 

"  The  priest,  taking  the  infant,  perfectly  naked"  (aid  and 
comfort  to  Rabbi  Kalisch),  "  in  his  hands,  and  holding  it  over 
the  font,  said,  '  The  servant  of  the  Lord,  Iphigenia,  is  bap- 
tized (placing  it  in  the  water,  which  reached  up  to  its  neck, 
and  thrice  taking  up  water  with  his  right  hand,  and  pouring 
upon  the  child's  head)  in  the  name  of  the  Father  (then  lifting 
the  child  up,  and  again  placing  it  in  the  water,  and  repeating 
the  affusion  as  before),  and  of  the  Son  (same  movement  re- 
peated), and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  now  and  ever,  even  for  ever 
and  ever  :  Amen.'  I  have  witnessed  this  ceremony  a  num- 
ber of  times,  and  in  no  instance  was  the  whole  body  of  the 
person  baptized,  immersed  in  the  water.  In  many  instances 
the  size  of  the  font  would  not  have  admitted  it. 

"  Rev.  Mr.  Wood,  for  many  years  a  missionary  at  Con- 
stantinople, and  now  one  of  the  Secretaries  of  the  A.  B.  C. 
F.  M.,  adds  his  testimony,  that  the  practice  is  the  same  in 
the  Armenian  Church,  and  he  cites  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Perkins,  in  an  article  contributed  to  '  Coleman's  Ancient 
Christianity  Exemplified'  (p.  574),  in  wliich  Dr.  Perkins  thus 
describes  the  way  of  baptism  among  the  Nestorians :  '  The 
children  are  set  into  a  vessel  of  tepid  water,  which  extends 
up  to  the  neck,  and  held  there  by  a  deacon,  while  the  priest 
takes  up  water  with  both  hands  (not  the  right  hand  only), 
and  suffuses  it  over  the  head,  repeating  the  name  of  one  per- 
son of  the  Trinity  each  time.' 

"  The  Armenian  clergy,  it  is  added,  base  their  practice 
of  baptism  by  affusion  on  the  fact,  received  among  the 
traditions"  (over  against  Rabbi  Kalisch's  traditions)  "of 
their  church,  that  the  Saviour  was  thus  baptized.     In  all 


38  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

their  pictures  of  the  scene  of  the  baptism,  Christ  is  repre- 
sented as  standing  in  the  Jordan,  and  the  Baptist  as  pour- 
ing water  from  his  hand  upon  his  head.  Jews,  who  some- 
times enter  the  Armenian  Church,  are  baptized  in  the  same 
manner. 

"  The  Armenian  Church  (it  is  further  stated)  acknowledges 
the  validity  of  baptism  by  sprinkling,  and  receives,  Avithout 
rebaptizing  them,  Romanists  and  Protestants  who  seek  ad- 
mission into  its  communion  with  no  other  baptism.  The 
Greeks  rebaptize,  but  the  writers  must  be  mistaken  who 
represent  the  ground  of  this  to  be  a  view  of  immersion  as 
essential  to  baptism.  Regarding  all  other  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians as  in  heresy  and  schism,  they  arrogate  valid  ordinances 
and  salvation  to  their  own  church  exclusively,  and  would  no 
sooner  receive  one  baptized  by  immersion,  without  rebap- 
tizing him,  than  they  would  one  whose  baptism  was  by 
sprinkling.  Their  own  baptism,  if  it  ever  is,  very  exten- 
sivel}^  to  say  the  least,  is  not  an  immersion." 

What,  now,  does  Professor  Arnold  say  of  these  baptisms 
of  the  Armenian,  Nestorian,  and  Greek  churches?  Hear 
him  :  "  There  is  no  baptism  without  immersion ;  but  they 
are  not  punctilious  about  the  totality  of  the  immersion.  Af- 
fusion comes  in  only  to  supply  the  defect  and  complete  the 
immersion."  Is  not  this  a  marvellous  utterance  from  a 
friend  of  the  theory?  He  does  not  dare  reject  these  bap- 
tisms of  the  Eastern  churches,  and  yet  there  is  not  in  one 
of  them  a  baptism  according  to  the  theory.  But  "  the  totality'' 
of  the  immersion"  has  suddenly  become  "a  punctilio!" 
And  "  the  defect"  in  the  immersion  is  remedied,  hear  all  ye 
friends  of  the  theory,  by  "  affusion  ! !  "  We  are  told  that  in 
the  bottom  of  the  Dead  Sea  there  is  a  sudden  break  down 
from  "  thirteen  feet  to  thirteen  hundred  feet."  But  this 
sudden  fall  of  a  thousaud  feet  is  a  trifle  to  this  bathic  break 
down  of  the  theory  in  the  hands  of  Professor  Arnold.  But 
it  is  a  shame  to  strike  a  foe  when  fallen  without  the  proffer  of 
generous  quarter;  how  much  more,  then,  a  kindly  opponent 
like  Professor  Arnold.  lie  has  fallen  as  heavily  as  one  of 
his  weight  (and  I  am  sure  he  is  not  one  of  the  "  light  weights," 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  39 

intellectually  or  morally)  can  fall.  "We,  therefore,  extend  to 
him  our  hand  and  assist  him  to  rise,  that  he  may  do  battle 
on  another  field  of  his  selection. 

ALEXANDER    DE    STOURDZA. 

Alexander  de  Stourdza  takes  the  place  with  Professor 
Arnold  which  Rabbi  Isidor  Kalisch  took  with  the  National 
Baptist.  Whether  the  former  will  prove  a  more  valuable 
ally  than  the  latter  remains  to  be  seen.  The  challenge  under 
which  the  Professor  proposes  to  do  battle  is  this:  "The  verb 
/3a;rTctw,  immerc/0,  has  but  one  meaning.  It  signifies  llieraVy 
and  2)erpetuaUi/,  to  plunge."  This  is  the  language  of  de 
Stourdza  which,  when  the  Professor  adopts  as  his  own,  is 
accompanied  with  this  plaintive  lament,  "It  is  a  pity  that 
this  Greek  scholar  should  be  left  without  the  light  of  Dr. 
Dale's  volumes."  Having  no  hope  that  the  light  from  these 
volumes  can  reach  to  the  Professor's  height,  I  will  seek  to 
throw  light  upon  this  thesis  from  some  other  sources  which 
he  may  hold  in  higher  estimation. 

And,  first,  I  presume  the  Professor  will  pay  due  respect 
to  light  proceeding  from  himself.  Let  me,  then,  ask  of  him, 
Do  you.  Professor  Arnold,  believe  that  "/Sa-rtT^  has  but  one 
meaning,  and  that  that  meaning  is,  literally  and  perpetually, 
to  plunge?  "  To  be  more  specific,  Do  you  believe  that  when 
the  sea-coast  is  baptized  by  the  tide  coming  over  it,  that  the 
sea-shore  is  "plunged"  into  the  water?  "  Well,  of  course,  I 
know  that  it  is  not;  but  de  Stourdza  says  that  it  is,  and  who 
am  I  that  I  should  oppose  Stourdza?"  Do  you  believe  that 
when,  in  the  overflowings  of  the  Nile,  its  banks,  and  the 
plants  in  the  Egyptian  fields,  and  their  land-animals  are 
baptized,  that  banks,  and  plants,  and  animals  are  taken  up 
and  "  plunged"  into  the  water  ?  "  Why,  of  course,  I  know 
that  they  are  not;  but  de  Stourdza  says  that  they  are,  and 
what  can  I  say,  but  say  what  Stourdza  says?"  Do  you 
believe  that  the  soldiers,  who  w^ere  baptized  by  marching 
all  day  through  the  water  to  their  waists,  were  "plunged" 
into  the  water  by  anybody  or  anything  ?     "  Why  ask  such 


40  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

a  question  ?  I  know  as  well  as  any  one  that  they  were  not; 
but  so  long  as  cle  Stourdza  says  that  they  were,  what  can  I 
do?"  Do  you  believe  that  the  altar  on  Mount  Carnicl,  bap- 
tized by  water  poured  upon  it,  was  "plunged"  into  the 
water?  "  Why  persist  in  asking  such  questions?  Any  one, 
though  more  stupid  than  Baal's  worshippers,  must  know 
that  it  was  not ;  but  Stourdza !  Stourdza ! "  Do  you  believe 
that  souls,  at  the  gates  of  Paradise,  baptized  by  the  waving 
of  a  flaming  sword  in  the  hands  of  the  Great  Baptist,  are 
"plunged?"'  "I  must  positively  decline  listening  to  any 
more  such  questions.  What  will  de  Stourdza  say?"  I  will 
ask  no  more  questions.  It  is  quite  plain  that  there  is  light 
in  you,  but  the  deep  de  Stourdza  shadow  turns  it  into  dark- 
ness. There  may,  however,  be  some  of  your  friends  pos- 
sessed of  courage  to  express,  as  Avell  as  hold,  an  opinion 
which  may  not  exactly  square  with  that  of  the  Russo-Greek 
Councillor.  What  does  your  friend  Gale  say?  Dr.  Gale, 
do  you  believe  in  "  one  meaning,  literally  and  perpetually, 
to  plunge  f  "I  have  tried  as  hard  as  any  man  to  carry 
through  '  one  meaning,'  but,  as  you  know,  I  have  my  mis- 
givings ;  we  may  have,  at  last,  to  fall  back  on  something 
beyond  act  of  any  kind ;  it  may  be  that  it  is  condition  and 
not  act  which  is  expressed."  And  what  is  your  opinion.  Dr. 
Cox  ?  "  I  believe  that  any  man  made  very  wet  by  the  drop- 
pings of  the  night  dew  falling  on  him  is  baptized  thereby." 
Dr.  Fuller,  what  is  your  ftiith  on  this  point?  "  I  give  up 
plunge,  and  nothing  but  plunge.  If  water  is  poured  over  a 
man  long  enough,  he  will  need  no  plunging  to  baptize  him." 
Dr.  Carson,  what  do  you  say  ?  "  I  have  very  little  to  say  for 
'  plunge,  literally  and  perpetually,'  but  I  am  ready  to  stake 
all  on  '  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,  through  all  Greek  litera- 
ture.' "  And  what  does  "  the  Professor  of  the  Baptist  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Rochester,  ISTew  York,"  say  ?  "  Brethren  ! 
my  advice  is,  get  rid  of  senseless  dipping."  Will  Dr.  Conant 
give  us  light  upon  this  issue ?  "I  have  translated  ^aTzzi^u) 
and  its  derivatives,  in  the  Bible  and  out  of  the  Bible,  nearly 
five  hundred  times,  and  seventeen  times  (against  opposing 
hundreds)  I  have  translated  it  plunge.     That  is  all  the  aid 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  41 

and  comfort  which  I  can  give  to  Stourdza-ism."  Will  the 
venerable  Booth  give  us  his  judgment  on  this  question? 
"  Mj  judgment  is  on  record  long  ago.  An  opponent  of  mine 
once  translated  /Sajrrc'Cw,  '  literally  and  perpetually,  to  ■plunge,^ 
and  I  said,  in  reply,  that  he  did  so  '  to  make  our  sentiments 
and  practice  ridiculous.'  De  Stourdza  may  mean  very  well 
by  his  literally  and  perpetually  plunging,  but  this  only  leads 
me  the  more  earnestly  to  cry,  Save  me  from  my  friends!" 
So  much  for  de  Stourdza's  "  plunge." 

"  It  is  a  pity  that  this  Greek  scholar  should  be  left  without 
the  light  of  Dr.  Dale's  volumes,"  or,  in  its  absence,  let  me 
add,  without  the  light  of  this  voluminous  testimony  of  Pro- 
fessor Arnold's  friends. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  there  is  not  a  thoughtful  and 
well-read  man  on  earth  who  believes  this  doctrine  of  de 
Stourdza.  And  there  is  no  risk  in  saying  that  neither  Pro- 
fessor Arnold,  nor  de  Stourdza  himself,  believes  what  their 
language  affirms.  I  will  not  say  (as  the  Baptist  Quarterly 
says  of  Dr.  Dale  and  his  volumes)  it  is  "  ayi  attempt  to  impose 
upon  the  unlearned  and  the  half  learned,"  for  I  have  never 
learned  that  the  correction  of  error  required  the  maligning 
of  character.  I  do  not  believe  that  these  worthy  men  have 
made  "  an  attempt  to  impose  "  error  for  truth  upon  any  one. 
Their  best  defence  must  be  in  the  apologetic  abandonment 
of  their  position,  saying,  "  We  did  not  really  mean  what,  in 
words,  we  said."  This  plea  has  already  been  entered  for 
Dr.  Carson  and  his  disproved  "  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip." 
It  must  be  re-entered  for  the  patently  erroneous  "  plunge, 
and  nothing  but  plunge"  of  Arnold  and  de  Stourdza, 
Neither  Jewish  Rabbi  nor  Greek  Councillor  can  save  the 
theory. 

"  SEE   ALL   THE   LEXICONS." 

"  See  all  the  lexicons,"  says  Professor  Arnold,  to  prove 
that  ^a-zi'^m  means  to  plunge,  a  strictly  definite  act.  And 
another  writer  in  this  Baptist  Quarterly  says,  "  Mr.  Dale 
does  not  assail  us  with  Stephens  and  Scapula."  And  a  third 
writer,  speaking  of  lexicons,  says,  "  It  is  not  creditable  to 


42  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

our  religious  journalism  that  sucli  works  as  Mr.  Dale's 
Classic  Baptism  should  find  counteuauce  or  favor  in  any 
quarter." 

My  desire  in  examining  into  the  meaning  of  this  Greek 
word  has  been  to  place  the  inquiry  on  an  ultimate  basis,  and 
to  collect  material  for  a  final  and  irreversible  judgment. 
My  judgment  has  not  been  presented  as  final  or  irreversible 
for  any  one,  not  even  for  myself.  Disprove  my  evidence 
and  3'ou  change  my  judgment.  The  materials  on  which  that 
judgment  is  based  are  uncovered  for  the  inspection  and  the 
independent  judgment  of  every  one  as  well  as  for  myself. 
If  in  my  judgment  I  have,  as  charged,  played  the  fool  and 
shamed  idiocy,  then,  even  "  the  unlearned  and  the  half 
learned"  will  not  be  likely  to  be  liarmed  by  my  "attempt 
to  impose  upon  them."  But  if  the  judgment  reached  is  so 
clearly  indicated  that  even  "  a  mere  country  pastor"  may  be 
considered  as  competent  to  see  it,  and  if  that  judgment  be 
sustained  by  the  independent  judgment  of  all  outside  of  the 
theory,  then  that  judgment  will  be  final  and  irreversible,  and 
the  friends  of  the  theory  will,  sooner  or  later,  confess  it  to 
be  so.  Heretofore  in  this  inquiry  reliance  has  been  placed 
on  usage,  and  nothing  has  been  said  about  lexicons,  because 
it  is  a  matter  of  universal  admission  that  manifold  imperfec- 
tions attend  upon  general  lexicography,  and  its  conclusions 
are  without  authority  except  as  they  may  give  a  true  inter- 
pretation of  usage.  But  inasmuch  as  appeal  is  now  made 
from  usage  to  lexicography,  and  the  theory  claims  that  every 
lexicon  is  a  pillar  of  support  to  its  doctrine,  it  may  be  well 
to  turn  aside  for  a  while  and  inquire  into  the  facts  of  the 
case. 

But  before  we  "  see  all  the  lexicons,"  let  us  clearly  under- 
stand what  it  is  that  we  are  expected  to  see  in  them.  Let 
there  be  no  confounding  of  this  with  that.  If  it  is  one  thing 
and  but  one  thing,  then  let  it  not  be  diverse  things  and  noth- 
iuiX  but  diverse  thino;s.  The  theory  boasts  of  its  one  mean- 
ing  and  of  its  denial  of  any  second  meaning.  If  this  were 
not,  as  Professor  Stuart  declares  it  to  be,  "an  adventurous 
position,"  but  one  founded  in  fact,  then  it  would  be  the 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  43 

simplest  thing  in  the  world  for  the  theory  to  announce  that 
one  meaning,  plant  itself  squarely  upon  it,  and  indicate  its 
truth  by  pointing  out  fact  after  fact.  This  has  never  been 
done.  This  has  never,  really,  been  attempted  to  be  done. 
"When  Carson  gives  the  one  meaning  in  the  sharpest  possible 
delinition,  there  is  not  enough  of  attempt  to  carry  the  defini- 
tion into  the  facts  of  usage  to  dignify  it  by  entitling  it  a 
failure.  And  when  Arnold-Stourdza  gives  the  one  meaning 
in  another  character,  and  by  a  definition  matching  well  that 
of  Carson  in  sharpness,  Booth  replies,  that  its  application  to 
the  facts  of  usage  "  makes  our  sentiments  and  practice 
ridiculous."  This  utter  failure  through  two  centuries  to 
present  the  one  meaning  in  a  tangible  shape  and  to  verify  it 
by  laying  it  alongside  of  the  universal  facts  of  usage,  is, 
itself,  proof  that  the  claim  cannot  be  true,  and  that  the  claim 
for  lexical  support  must  be  equally  untrue.  But  while  there 
has  been  no  general  attempt  to  give  embodiment  to  the 
meaning  in  one  word,  and  when  the  attempt  has  been  made 
it  has  awakened  dissent  and  resulted  in  failure,  still  there 
has  been  an  almost  universal  assent  to  the  position,  that 
(iaiiri'^u)  makes  demand  for  an  act,  to  be  done,  in  contradis- 
tinction from  a  result  or  a  condition  consequent  upon  the 
doing  of  an  act;  and  farther,  that  this  act  demanded  to  be 
done  is  properly  described  as  specific  in  its  nature,  definite 
in  its  character,  and  modal  in  its  form.  This  word  is  said 
to  maintain  its  meaning  unchanged  in  ideal  as  well  as  in 
physical  relations.  And  any  secondary  meaning  is  peremp- 
torily denied. 

What  we  are  called  upon,  then,  to  "  see  in  all  the  lexicons" 
is,  1.  A  definite  act ;  2.  A where  a  secondary  mean- 
ing should  have  been. 

This  statement  is,  perhaps,  sufficiently  substantiated  by 
what  has  been  said  in  the  general  treatment  of  the  subject, 
but  inasmuch  as  special  appeal  has  been  made  to  the  lexi- 
cons, and  this  meaning  of  the  theory  (act  in  opposition  to 
condition),  is  the  alpha  and  the  omega  determinative  of  the 
whole  subject,  it  will  be  desirable  to  have  distinctly  before 
us  authoritative  evidence  of  the  teaching  of  the  theory  on 


44  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

this  point.  For  this  purpose  the  following  quotations  are 
made  from  representative  writers. 

Dr.  Gale,  London,  1711,  j^.  93.  "  We  cannot  believe  that 
it  is  so  doubtful,  in  Scripture,  as  many  pretend,  whether 
dipping  only  be  baptism.  I'll  begin  with  the  words  /5a;rTw  and 
^aizri^u),  for  they  are  synonymous." 

This  is  doubly  plain.  Gale  not  only  says  that  the  definite 
act  "  dipping"  is,  and  "  only"  is,  baptism,  but  he  says  that 
iSanrif^m  is  syuouymous  with  the  definite  act  verb  ^dnzoj.  lie, 
then,  beyond  all  question,  regarded  iSanri^uj  as  a  verb  de- 
manding the  performance  of  a  definite  act. 

Booth,  London,  1792,  p.  265.  "  The  verb  baptize,  in  this 
dispute,  denotes  an  action  required  by  the  divine  law.  And 
the  simple  question  is,  What  is  ihiit  action?  Is  it  immersion, 
or  pouring,  or  sprinkling?  Not  what  is  the  principal  end  or 
design  of  that  action  f  Be  the  action  itself,  and  the  design  of 
it,  whatever  they  may,  they  certainly  are  different  things, 
and  must  be  so  considered." 

Booth  could  not  state  the  point  more  sharply  :  "  Baptize 
denotes  an  action  required  by  the  divine  law."  The  error  in 
using  "immersion,"  as  "pouring  and  sprinkling,"  to  ex- 
press the  act  of  the  verb  should  be  noted  as  of  constant  oc- 
currence in  this  class  of  writers.  Pouring  expresses  the  act 
in  the  verb  "to  pour;"  and  sjmidding  expresses  the  doing 
of  the  act  in  the  verb  "to  sprinkle;"  but  "immersion" 
does  not  express  the  doing  of  the  act  in  the  verb  to  immerse. 
"Immersion"  is  the  result  of  the  act  of  immersing. 

P.  279.  "  That  many  tyrants  and  fools  have  given  laws  to 
secular  kingdoms,  and  have  even  presumed  to  legislate  for 
Jesus  Christ  himself,  is  a  fact ;  that  some  of  their  laws  have 
been  marked  with  tyrannic  subtilty,  and  others  with  egre- 
gious folly,  is  also  a  fact;  but  that  any  of  them  were  ever  so 
crafty  as  to  contrive  a  law  which  by  a  single  specific  enacting 
term  equally  required  three  different  acts  of  obedience,  and  yet 
were  so  complaisant  as  to  feel  themselves  perfectly  satisfied 
with  having  any  one  of  those  acts  performed,  I  do  not  be- 
lieve." P.  280.  "  Ba-KTi'^u)  is  a  specific  term.  The  English 
expression  dip  is  a  specific  term."  P.  286. 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  45 

We  may  question  the  propriety  of  making  "  tyrant  and 
fool"  the  alternative  title  of  the  Divine  lawgiver  under  any 
possible  contingency;  but  he  must  be  more  than  "atj'rant," 
and  less  than  "  a  fool,"  who  would  doubt  that  Booth  means 
to  say,  that  /JarTj'Cw  expresses  a  specific  act. 

Cox,  London,  1824,  jp.  46.  "  The  idea  of  dipping  is  in  every 
instance  conveyed;  and  no  less  so  by  all  the  current  uses  of 
the  terms  [(idTzrio  and  ftanrc^^w)  in  question.  A  person  may  in- 
deed be  immersed  by  pouring,  but  immersion  is  the  being 
plunged  into  water  or  (the  being)  overwhelmed  by  it.  Were 
the  water  to  ascend  from  the  earth,  it  would  still  be  bap- 
tism, were  the  person  wholly  covered  by  it." 

Nothing  could  be  more  explicit  or  more  harmonious  with 
the  theory  than  the  first  sentence;  nothing  could  exhibit 
"confusion  worse  confounded"  beyond  the  remainder  of 
the  quotation.  Observe  the  confusion  in  the  use  of  "  im- 
mersed" and  "immersion."  In  the  case  of  the  first  the 
usage  is  proper;  "immersed"  expresses  a  condition,  the  re- 
sult of  the  act  of  pouring;  but  "immersion,"  instead  of 
being  used  as  the  condition  resultant  from  the  act  in  "  being 
plunged,"  "  being  overwhelmed,"  is  exhibited  as  only  an- 
other form  of  those  acts. 

Observe,  again,  the  absurdity  of  representing  /Sa-rt^w  as 
"io  dip  in  every  instance,"  and  then  representing  as  fulfilled 
in  its  demand  by  the  diverse  specific  acts  of  plunging,  pouring, 
and  risi7ig  up!  Was  it  such  a  case  that  Booth  had  in  view 
when  he  said,  that  "  to  use  a  single  specific  terin  equall}^  re- 
quiring three  different  acts  of  obedience,  was  beyond  the  craft 
of  the  most  consummate  tyrants  and  fools  ?  " 

Observe,  further,  that  Cox,  while  afiirming  a  specific  act 
(dipping)  "  in  every  instance,"  abandons  all  act  as  expressed 
by  the  word  and  substitutes  for  it  condition.  The  act  of 
plunging  is  of  no  moment,  it  may  be  there  or  it  may  not  be 
there ;  the  act  of  pouring  is  of  no  moment,  it,  too,  may  be 
there  or  may  not  be  there;  the  act  of  rising  up  of  gushing 
waters,  is  of  no  moment,  it,  likewise,  may  be  there  or  may 
not  be  there ;  but  that  which  is  of  moment,  and  cannot  be 
wanting,  is  the  covered  condition!    Now,  can  fatuity  go  be- 


46  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

yond  the  affirmation,  that  ^anri^u)  makes  demand  for  the  per- 
formance of  a  specific  act,  and  yet  is  squarely  met  by  a  con- 
dition^ the  result  of  an}'  one  of  a  score  of  diverse  acts,  or  by 
the  conjoint  operation  of  any  half  dozen  of  them  ?  But  it  is 
precisely  this  absurdity,  more  or  less  baldly  presented,  which 
meets  us  everywhere  in  the  writings  of  the  upholders  of  the 
theory. 

31orell,  Edinburgh,  1848,  p.  107.  "  That  the  word  /SaTrntw 
uniforral}'  signifies  to  dip,  I  will  not  venture  to  assert  or  un- 
dertake to  prove.  I  believe  that  the  word  does  mean  to  dip, 
and  this  is  its  most  usual  meaning.  But  it  appears  quite  evi- 
dent, that  the  word  also  bears  the  sense  of  covering  hj  super- 
fusion.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Cox.  Thus  far  we  surren- 
der the  question  of  immersion  in  company  with  Dr.  Cox." 

Morell  is  evidently  a  cultivated  as  well  as  an  ingenuous 
man.  How  it  escaped  him  that  the  same  word  could  not 
possibly  express  the  diverse  specific  acts  of  dipping  and  super- 
fusing,  I  cannot  understand.  The  error,  however,  which 
resorts  to  attributing  to  one  word  two  diverse  specific  acts, 
rather  than  abandon  the  theory  of  a  specific  act  altogether, 
shows  how  ingrained  in  the  minds  of  the  Old  World  and  the 
New  is  the  conception  of  [iar.ri'^o)  as  expressing  a  definite  act. 

Stovel,  London,  1846,  p.  470.  "  On  the  act  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  student  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  may  determine 
for  himself  the  nature  of  the  act  which  Christ  the  Lord  hath 
enjoined  under  the  7iame  of  baptis7n."  P.  486.  "It  is  impossible 
to  dip  by  pouring,  or  to  pour  by  sprinkling;  and  since  there  is 
but  one  baptism,  it  must  be  one  or  the  other  of  these  acts;  it 
cannot  be  either  or  all.  Baizzi'^u}  is  the  same  with  ^^d-rw,  only 
with  a  causal  force." 

The  statement  that  verb  and  substantive  alike  express 
definite  act  could  not  be  more  absolute. 

Ingham,  London,  1865,  p.  47.  "  That  ^a-riZio  is  synonymous 
with  the  primary  meaning  of  /3a7rrw  appears  to  the  writer  to 
have  the  most  abundant  confirmation  from  the  instances 
where  it  occurs,  admitting  that  fidrau)  may  more  exclusively 
retain  the  idea  of  putting  anything  i)do  another,  whilst 
[iar.Ti'^io  mcaus  to  immcrsc,  not  only  when  the  object  is  put 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  47 

into  the  element,  but,  as  in  occasional  instances  on  record, 
when  the  element  is  brought  upon  and  around  the  object. 
The  primary  meaning  of  /3a-rw  is  to  dip." 

Here,  again,  we  meet  the  affirmation  of  a  specific  act  and 
the  absurd  admission  of  a  second  meaning  the  direct  con- 
trary of  the  first.  We,  also,  see  the  same  wretched  use  of 
"  immerse"  to  hide  the  nakedness  of  a  specific  act. 

President  Wayland,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Baptists,  p.  89. 
"  We  immerse  the  whole  body  in  water."  P.  91.  "  Few 
things  are  more  impressive  than  the  act  of  Christian  baptism. 
The  act  may  be  an  offence  to  the  world,  but  it  is  glorious  in 
the  sight  of  God,  of  angels  in  heaven,  and  of  saints  on  earth," 

Dr.  Wayland  appears  to  use  "immerse"  as  expressive  of 
"the  act"  in  baptizing  which,  among  Baptists,  is  by  dipping 
the  upper  part  of  the  bod}-.  In  so  doing  he  adds  his  honored 
name  to  the  long  list  of  those  who  maintain  that  God  has 
enjoined  a  si^ecific  act  to  be  done  in  baptizing. 

Professor  Curtis,  On  Communion,  p.  71.  "  Those  who  rightly 
receive  baptism  are  assured  by  aforinal  act  that  they  actually 
ai^e  '  heirs  of  God,  joint  heirs  with  Christ.'  Baptism  is  the 
act  of  consecration.  What  sight  on  earth  so  beautiful  as 
to  see  the  young  and  lovely  descending  into  the  waters  of 
baptism." 

Professor  Curtis,  not  writing  formally  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  is  not  so  explicit  as  to  "the  act"  as  others.  His 
language,  however,  "  a  formal  act,"  "  the  act,"  "  descending 
into,"  must  be  accredited  to  the  theoretical  specific  act. 

Professor  Jewett,  Baptism,  p.  13.  "  Bd-KTio  has  two  meanings, 
to  dip,  to  dye;  (^aitriZio,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Greek 
language,  has  but  one  meaning.  It  signifies  to  dip  (or  im- 
merse), and  never  has  any  other  meaning.  Either  /Sa-rw  or 
^oKri'^u)  may  signify  to  dip  generally." 

Professor  Jewett  stands  straight  up  for  "specific  act," 
"  one  meaning  through  all  Greek  literature,"  as,  also,  for 
the  perversion  of  "immerse"  in  being  made  to  perform  the 
role  of  dip  in  executing  a  specific  act. 

Professor  Dagg,  Church  Order,  p.  33.  "If/3a;rrw  signifies  to 
immerse,  ^anriZu)  signifies  to  cause  to  be  immersed.    This  makes 


48  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

the  words  nearly  or  quite  synonymous.  BaTCTw  more  fre- 
quently denotes  slight  or  temporary  immersion  than  /3arr/Cw. 
Hence  dip,  which  properly  denotes  slight  or  temporary  im- 
mersion, is  more  frequently  its  appropriate  rendering.  In 
nearly  half  the  examples  in  which  ySaTrntw  occurs,  in  the 
literal  sense,  it  signifies  the  immersion  which  attends 
drowning  or  the  sinking  of  ships."  P.  35.  "  The  propriety 
and  force  of  the  metaphorical  allusions  cannot  be  understood 
if  the  word  does  not  signify  to  immerse." 

Professor  Dagg,  in  these  statements,  mingles  truth  and 
error,  with  truth  more  predominant  than  in  the  case  of  any 
writer  yet  noticed.  It  is  an  error  to  translate  jSdTtruj  to  im- 
merse. This  is  evident  from  the  declaration  that  this  word 
"  denotes  slight  or  temporary  immersion;"  but  "  immerse" 
does  never  ^^  denote  slight  or  temporary  immersion ;"  it,  there- 
fore, cannot  be  the  translation  of /JaTrrw.  But  why  does  Dr. 
Dagg  translate,  here,  "  immerse,"  when  he  says,  it  means 
dip,  and  when,  in  a  formal  statement  of  the  passages  in 
which  ^dTTTiu  occurs,  he  translates  it  "to  dip"  in  every  in- 
stance ?  The  reason  is  the  same  as  that  which  leads  all 
Baptist  writers  to  murder  "immerse"  in  order  to  save  the 
life  of  "  dip."  Dr.  Dagg  wished  to  introduce  into  ^anTi'^u)  a 
meaning  to  meet  the  facts  of  usage,  which  the  theory  had  no 
power  to  give  him.  He  wanted  to  get  into  jSanrtZu}  a  widely 
diiierent  meaning  from  that  of /Jarrw,  while  the  theory  saj'S, 
they  are  "  nearly  or  quite  synon^-mous,"  He,  in  obedience  to 
theory,  makes  the  former  differ  from  the  latter  only  as  causa- 
tive. If,  now,  (Sd-TO)  is  allowed  to  retain  the  meaning  "  to  dip," 
then  ^ar.ziZuj  must  be  made  to  mean  "  to  cause  to  dip;"  but  the 
trouble  is,  that  this  meaning  ivill  not  meet  the  facts  of  usage. 
Instead,  now,  of  accepting  the  obvious  truth,  that  [iar.Ti'^u} 
differs  essentially  in  nature  from  /SaTrrw,  the  Professor  robs 
this  word  of  its  dip,  and  substitutes  for  it  immerse.  And, 
thus,  having  overlaid  dip  by  immerse,  he  is  enabled,  by 
causation,  to  extract  it  for  the  benefit  of  /Sarnt"*.  There  is 
no  end  to  the  tvvistings  and  turnings  which  grow  out  of  es- 
sential error  substituted  for  central  truth. 

Professor  Dagg  uses  "  immersion  "  properly  when  he  dis- 


EXAMINATIONS   OP   CRITICISMS.  49 

tinguishes  it  from  the  ads  of  drowning  and  sinking,  making 
it  a  condition  resultant  from  those  acts.  He  is,  also,  right  in 
bringing  into  bold  relief  the  ^'slight  and  temj)orary'^  immer- 
sion (dipping)  of  ^dnrco,  which  necessitates  withdrawal,  and 
the  unlimited  depth,  duration,  and  action  of  the  immersion  of 
§aTZTiZui,  which  excludes  withdrawal,  as  of  the  meaning  of 
this  word.  It  is  only  remarkable  that  Dr.  Dagg  should  have 
failed  to  perceive  that  a  word  of  such  characteristics  must 
express  condition  and  not  a  specific  act.  Professor  Dagg  is 
emphatically  right  when  he  says,  "  the  propriety  and  force 
of  the  metaphorical  allusions  cannot  be  understood  if  the 
word  does  not  signify  immerse,^'  always  provided,  that  the 
abuse  of  "  immerse"  to  the  sense  of  dip  is  here  abandoned. 
If  "immerse"  in  this  statement  be  used  as  when  it  is  said, 
'^  jSdnrut  to  immerse  (dip),  fiar,ri%u)  to  cause  to  immerse  {to  cause 
to  dip"),  then  every  particle  of  truth  has  evaporated  out  of 
it.  The  breadth  of  a  sunbeam  may  as  well  be  taken  to 
swathe  a  continent  as  the  feebleness  of  "dip"  be  used  to 
interpret  the  power  of  influence  which  everywhere  pervades 
the  secondary  use  of  /Sa-rtT*^'.  And,  herein,  we  find  one  of 
tlie  clearest  and  most  beautiful  of  the  many  evidences  prov- 
ing that  the  theory  is  wrong  to  the  very  heart.  That  which 
it  declares  (dip)  to  be  the  exclusive  meaning  of  the  word 
through  all  Greek  literature  has  not  the  shadow  of  fitness, 
Dr.  Dagg  being  judge,  to  meet  one-half  of  the  cases  of  the 
usage  of  the  word. 

Dr.  Fuller,  Baptism,  j^.  13.  "  The  act  of  baptism.  And 
just  so  ftdTtru)  to  dip,  (iaTtri'^io  to  make  one  dip,  that  is,  to  im- 
merse." P.  25.  ^^ BaTTTc'^aj  signifies  to  immerse,  and  has  no 
other  meaning."  P.  29.  "  The  fourth  case  is  produced  to 
show  that  fiaizziZu)  does  not  always  denote  the  act  of  plunging. 
My  position  is  that  ^aTZTi^io  means  to  immerse.  It  matters 
not  how  the  immersion  is  efiected."  (P.  31.)  "  Suppose  a 
man  should  lie  in  the  baptistery  while  it  is  filling.  The 
pouring  of  the  water  would  not  be  the  immersion,  but  an 
immersion  would  take  place  if  he  remained  long  enough. 
In  the  case  of  Elijah,  the  twelve  barrels  of  water  were  first 
poured,  and  the  trenches  all  around  filled,  and  it  is  the  effect  of 

4 


60  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

this,  it  is  the  heing  thus  drenched,  surrounded,  and  steeped, 
which  Origen  figuratively  calls  a  baptism." 

Dr.  Fuller  here,  again,  treats  us  to  the  ever  recurring 
masquerade  of  dip  and  immerse.  "  Just  so  fidr^ru)  to  dip ; 
^aizriZu)  to  make  one  dip,  that  is  io  immerse"  (/)  "  Ba-ri'^u)  sig- 
nifies to  immerse,  to  make  one  dip,  and  has  no  other  mean- 
ing." Dr.  Fuller  has  written  a  book  of  several  hundred 
pages,  and  has  used  the  word  immerse  scores  of  times ;  if  he 
has  used  it  in  a  solitary  instance  in  the  meaning  "  to  make 
one  dip"  (and  it  "has  no  other  meaning"),  I  have  not  met 
with  the  case.  How  the  specific  act  dip  (slight  and  tempo- 
rary) is  to  be  converted  b}^  figure  into  "  the  effect"  of  pour- 
ing— "  drenching,  surrounding,  steeping" — I  leave  the  ima- 
ginator  to  settle  with  his  friend  Dr.  Dagg. 

The  pinching  necessity  of  this  case  which  constrained  Dr. 
Fuller  to  accept  of"  effect"  as  expository  of /SaTrrcTw,  in  con- 
tradiction of  the  theory,  and  in  disregard  of  the  expostula- 
tions of  Carson,  should  have  revealed  the  true  character  of 
this  word  as  making  demand  not  for  the  doing  of  an  act, 
whether  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  sink,  to  pour,  or  what  not,  but 
for  an  end  to  be  secured,  an  effect,  a  condition,  the  result 
of  any  competent  act  or  acts. 

Dr.  Conant,  BAPTIZEIN,  j^P-  59-67,  103-107.  Dr.  Co- 
nant,  in  common  with  those  whose  views  have  already  been 
presented,  says,  that  the  word  is  severely  limited  to  one 
meaning,  (iii.)  "The  translation  expresses  its  true  and  onlj^ 
import."  "  From  the  earliest  age  of  Greek  literature  down 
to  its  close  (a  period  of  about  two  thousand  years),  not  an 
example  has  been  found  in  which  the  word  has  any  other 
meaning."  "  Showing  its  unvarying  signification  through 
all  this  time."  "  This  unvarying  sense  of  the  word."  "  The 
constant  usage  of  Greek  writers,  and  the  only  recognized 
meaning  of  the  word."  "  The  word  BAPTIZEIN,  during 
the  whole  existence  of  the  Greek  as  a  spoken  language,  had 
a  perfectly  defined  and  unvarying  import." 

The  character  of  a  word,  used  for  two  thousand  years  in 
one  unvarying  meaning,  ought  not  to  be  doubtful.    Dr.  Co- 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  61 

iiant  expresses  no  doubt  upon  the  subject.  He,  again,  agrees 
with  his  friends  in  classifying  it  with  those  verbs  which 
definitely  express  an  act  to  be  done,  and  not  a  definite  result  to 
be  effected  by  an  unexpressed  act.  These  are  his  statements : 
"  This  act  is  always  expressed  in  the  literal  application  of  the 
word,  and  is  the  basis  of  its  metaphorical  uses."  "  The 
literal  act  of  immersion  as  the  means  of  cleansing."  "  The 
word  is  used  of  the  most  familiar  acts."  "  With  the  prepo- 
sition into  expressing  fully  the  act  of  passing  from  one  element 
into  another."  "  The  act  it  expresses  took  place."  "  A 
Greek  could  be  at  no  loss  to  know  ivhai  was  done,  or  what 
was  required  to  be  done."  "  The  other  acts  with  which  it  is 
compared."  "  The  Greek  word  expresses  nothing  more 
than  tlie  actof  immersion."  "  This  act  is  performed  on  the 
assenting  believer."  "  The  act  expressed  by  the  same  word." 
"  The  act  designated  by  the  word  in  all  these  cases  is  the  same." 
"  The  act  associates  with  itself  obligations."  "  The  act  which 
it  described  retained  its  primary  meaning."  "  The  act  which 
it  describes  was  chosen  for  its  adaptation."  "  The  same 
closely  marked  corporeal  act  as  is  expressed  by  the  Greek 
word." 

When  Dr.  Conant  says,  that  lianu^u}  "  always  expresses  this 
act"  ^'■expresses  the  «d  that  took  place,"  ^^  expresses  nothing 
more  than  the  act"  ^'■designates  the  act"  '■'■describes  the  act" 
there  is  nothing  more  certain  than  that  he  is  in  error.  The 
Greek  word  is  devoid  of  all  power  to  inform  us  as  to  the 
form  or  character  of  "the  act"  by  which  any  baptism  is 
effected.  It  cannot  inform  us  whether  a  baptism  is  effected 
by  one  act  or  by  two  acts.  If  Thales,  the  wisest  of  "  the 
Seven,"  were  alive  again,  he  could  not  answer  the  question, 
"  "What  is  the  act  which  [ia-KTi%io  expresses  ?  "  How  much  less 
could  "  any  Greek  know  what  was  done  or  what  was  required 
to  be  done."  If  the  offer  were  made  to  Dr.  Conant  to  pay 
for  the  next  edition  of  his  BAPTIZEIi^  in  case  he  should 
answer  this  question,  the  question  must  remain  unanswered. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  '■Hhe  act"  expressed  by  /Sarrrt'Cw  in 
contradistinction  from  an  untold  number  of  other  and  diverse 
acts  by  which  the  demand  of  the  word  may  be  as  well  and 


62  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

as  truly  met.  That  this  is  true  will  be  seen  by  farther  state- 
ments made  by  Dr.  Conant.  If  this  word  expresses  an  act 
done  daily  through  two  thousand  years,  then,  since  nothing 
is  so  sharply  limited,  so  unvarying,  so  universal,  and  so 
easily  to  be  expressed,  there  ought  to  be  a  fo,c  simile  for 
every  such  act  in  Greece  in  every  land  under  the  sun,  and 
its  enunciation  ought  to  be  met  with  in  every  spoken  tongue. 
Has  Dr.  Conant  furnished  us  with  the  counterpart  of  this  act 
and  its  expression  in  the  English  language  ?  This  is  the 
answer:  "BAPTIZEIN  means,  to  immerse,  immerge,  sub- 
merge, to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  imbathe,  to  whelm."  And  is 
this  to  be  received  as  verifying  the  declaration  that  ^arMX^u) 
"  designates,"  "  describes,"  "  expresses  the  act"  of  baptism? 
There  are  but  two  words  out  of  the  seven  which  express  a 
definite  act  (dip  and  plunge),  and  these  two  acts  are  essen- 
tially diverse  in  their  character,  so  that  if  /Sajrrt'Cw  expresses 
either,  it  cannot '  express  the  other.  And,  beside,  we  have 
seen  Dr.  Conant's  friends  repudiating  both ;  the  venerable 
Booth  declaring  that  "plunge  makes  our  practice  and  senti- 
ments ridiculous;"  and  "the  Professor  of  the  Baptist  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Rochester,  New  York,"  exclaiming,  "Bap- 
tist brethren  !  Christian  baptism  is  no  mere  literal  and  sense- 
less dipping.'^  Just  in  so  far  as  these  seven  defining  terms 
fail  to  express  "  one  unvarying  act,"  they  fail  to  express 
"  tJds  act,"  the  act  which,  we  are  told,  ^anziZu)  '-'■always  desig- 
nates, describes,  and  expresses." 

But  Dr.  Conant  acknowledges  that  these  seven  words  do 
not  express  any  one,  common,  form  of  act.  By  an  analysis 
he  groups  their  differences  into  two  classes :  1.  Such  as  move 
the  object,  ^'■putting  into"  the  element;  2.  Such  as  move  the 
element,  "putting  under"  the  element.  These  two  classes 
cannot  be  reduced  any  farther,  retaining  act  as  the  distin- 
guishing basis  of  the  classification.  They  may,  however,  be 
reduced  to  one  class  by  the  abandonment  of  the  act,  in  which 
they  differ,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  result,  in  which  they 
agree.  Whether  the  object  be  moved  so  as  to  pmt  into  the 
element,  or  whether  the  element  be  moved  so  as  to  put  under 
the  object,  "put  into"  and  "put  under"  meet  together  in 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  53 

put  within.  The  differences  in  act  are  merged  in  a  common 
result,  and  this  result  becomes  the  characteristic  expression 
of  the  verb.  It  is  this  (result)  and  not  "this"  (act)  which 
^ar^riZu)  "  designates,"  "  describes,"  and  "expresses." 

It  is  obvious  that  this  jmt  vnthin  [intus-iDono)  brings  us  face 
to  face  with  the  "  intus  position"  declared  by  Classic  Bap- 
tism to  be  the  characteristic  demand  of  the  word. 

Additional  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  conclusion  is 
found  in  the  word,  selected  from  these  seven,  as  the  repre- 
sentative word.  That  word  is  immerse.  "  The  word  immerse, 
as  well  as  its  synonyms  immerge,  submerge,  dip,  plunge,  imbathe, 
whelm,  expresses  the  full  import  of  the  Greek  word  BAPTI- 
ZEIN"."  "  The  rendering  given  to  this  word,  in  this  revision 
{immerse),  is  its  true  and  only  meaning,  as  proved  by  the  unani- 
mous testimony  of  Greek  writers,  both  Pagan  and  Christian." 
"  The  word  immerse  has  been  selected  for  use  in  this  Revision 
as  most  nearly  resembling  the  original  word  in  the  extent  of 
its  application." 

If  "  immerse"  be  the  '■Hrue  and  only  meaning"  of /JaTrrttw, 
then  the  other  six  words  have  no  right  to  appear  as  its  trans- 
lation, for  they  differ  both  from  "  immerse"  and  from  each 
other.  As  they,  thus,  have  no  right  to  appear,  so  there  can 
be  no  possible  necessity,  when  there  is  a  word  which  ex- 
presses "  the  true  and  only  meaning."  But,  again,  if  "  im- 
merse" only  comes  "most  nearly"  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  word,  it  is  quite  unwarranted  to  say  that  "  it  is  proved 
to  be  its  true  and  only  meaning."  If  the  exposition  by  Dr. 
Conant  of  the  word  in  question,  namely,  "  it  expresses  the 
act,"  be  correct,  then  he  was  shut  up  to  the  choice,  out  of 
the  seven,  either  of  dip  or  plunge,  for  these  are  the  only  terms 
which  express  the  definite,  executive  act.  Therefore  it  was 
that  Stourdza  makes  "plunge"  the  literal  and  perpetual  act. 
And,  therefore,  Carson  makes  "  dip  "  the  only  act  expressed 
through  all  Greek  literature.  Dr.  Conant  should,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  theory,  have  followed  their  example  and  chosen 
the  one  or  the  other.  But  he  does  not  do  this.  He  selects 
another  word — "  immerse."  And  each,  alike,  claims  that 
his  word  "  expresses  the  true  and  only  meaning  through  two 


54  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

thousand  years  !"  Now  is  there  a  living  man  who  will  say 
that  these  words  are  equivalent  terms,  so  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference  in  assigning  a  radical,  critical  definition  to  a 
word  from  which  usage  through  twenty  centuries  is  to  be 
evolved,  whether  such  definition  be  expressed  by  dip,  or  by 
PLUNGE,  or  by  immerse  ?  If  no  such  person  can  be  found, 
then  dipping,  or  plunging,  or  immersing,  or  all  three,  must 
be  rejected.  But  "Baptist  brethren"  have  already  been 
warned  against  dip  and  plunge  as  "senseless"  and  "ridicu- 
lous ;"  there  remains,  therefore,  for  us  only  to  consider  "  im- 
merse." The  word  immerse  does  not  express  movement  out 
of  one  thing  into  another  thing,  but  only  the  iviihin  result 
reached.  Therefore  the  demand  of  the  word  is  full}^  met 
though  the  baptized  object  remain  as  fixed  as  the  shore  of 
the  sea  or  as  the  fields  of  Egypt.  If  the  mountain  will  not 
come  to  Mohammed,  Mohammed  must  go  to  the  mountain. 
Objection  has  been  already  entered  against  using  a  word 
(im-merse)  derived  from  the  compound  im-mergo  to  express, 
critically,  [ianri'^u).  The  Latin  devolves  upon  one  preposition 
the  double  duty  of  expressing  motion  into  a  place,  and  rest 
in  a  place.  On  this  ground,  apparently,  and  in  contradiction 
of  English  usage,  occasion  has  been  taken  to  use  im-merse 
as  directly  expressing  movement  into;  and  not  only  so,  but, 
also,  to  use  it,  ais  convenience  required,  in  its  legitimate 
meaning  as  expressive,  simply,  of  withinness  of  position. 
This  double  usage  vitiates  all  the  writings  of  the  friends  of 
the  theory.  Dr.  Conant  says,  it  means  "passing  into,"  and 
in  proof  appeals  to  the  construction  with  d<;.  But  the  proof 
is  not,  hereb}',  furnished.  The  preposition  does  indeed  prove 
that  there  is  a  "passing  into,"  but  it  does  not  prove  that 
such  passing  into  is  expressed  b}'  ^ar.ri'^u).  "  The  ship  was  im- 
mersed into  the  lowest  depths  of  the  sea."  The  preposition, 
here,  proves  that  there  is  a  ^)«55f??^  into  the  depths  from  the 
surface;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  such  "passing  into"  is 
expressed  by  "  immersed,"  any  more  than  in,  "  the  ball  was 
buried  into  the  palmetto  wood,"  the  preposition  proves  that 
the  passing  into  is  expressed  by  "  buried." 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  the  act  of  dipping,  the  act  of 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  55 

plunging,  the  act  of  sinking,  the  act  of  falling,  the  act  of 
walking,  as  distinctive  severall}^  from  all  other  acts,  but  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  the  act  of  immersion  as  distinctive  from 
all  other  acts.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  the  act  of  dye- 
ing, soaking,  steeping,  imbuing,  immersing,  as  distinctive, 
severally,  from  all  other  acts.  These  terms  express  results 
equally  reached  by  diversity  of  acts  and  processes. 

But  Dr.  Conaut  does  not  confine  himself  to  the  use  of  this 
word  as  expressive  of  movement;  he  employs  it,  also,  as  ex- 
pressive of  rest.  Thus  he  says,  "  The  ground-idea  expressed 
by  this  word  is  io  jmi  into  or  put  ujider  ivaier,  so  as  entirely  to 
immerse  or  submerge."  Here  it  is  impossible  for  "  immerse," 
"submerge,"  to  express  movement;  they  can  only  express 
the  result  of  the  movement  put  into,  put  under,  namely,  a 
covered  condition.  It  is  the  capability  of  "  im-merse"  for  this 
unlawful  double  use  (without  the  same  naked  exposure  of 
the  wrong),  which  qualifies  it  to  take  the  place  o^  dip  and 
plunge,  without  its  friends  feeling  constrained  to  say  that  it 
makes  their  theory  "senseless"  and  '* ridiculous." 

That  the  true  character  of  immerse  has  been  given  is  made 
certain  by  what  Dr.  Conant  says  of  the  "  ground-idea"  of  the 
word. 

"  The  ground-idea  expressed  by  this  word  is  to  put  into  or 
under"  (the  act),  "so  as  entirely  to  immerse  or  submerge" 
(the  covered  condition).  "  This  ground-idea  is  expressed  by 
the  terms  (synonymous  in  this  ground  element)  to  immerse,  im- 
merge,  submerge,  io  dip,  to  plunge,  to  imbathe,  to  whelm."  "  The 
object  immersed  or  suh-merged"  (covered  condition)  "is 
represented  as  being  plunged,  or  as  sinking"  (the  act)  "  into 
the  ingulfing"  (covering)  "fluid;  or  the  immersing"  (cover- 
ing) "element  overflows"  (the  act),  "and  thus  ingulfs" 
(covers)  "  the  object."  "  A  sense  founded  on  the  idea  of 
total  submergence."  "  Whenever  the  idea  of  total  submerg- 
ence" (covering)  "was  to  be  expressed,  this  was  the  first 
word  which  presented  itself."  "All  agreeing  in  the  essential 
idea  oi  submergence"  (covering).  "By  constant  usage  ex- 
pressed entire  submersion"  (covering).  In  all  these  state- 
ments act  is  most  expressly  excluded  from  the  characteristic 


66  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  the  word  and  condition  is  substituted.  And  it  is  this  "  con- 
dition," and  not  "  act,"  which  is  made  the  basis  of  meta- 
phorical use.  "  The  ground-idea  is  preserved  in  the  several 
metaphorical  uses  of  the  word."  "  The  idea  of  a  total  sub- 
mergence" (covering)  "  lies  at  the  basis  of  these  metaphorical 
uses."  *' A  sense  founded  on  the  idea  of  total  submergence'^ 
(covering),  "  as  in  floods  of  sorrow."  "  During  the  whole 
existence  of  the  Greek  as  a  spoken  language,  it  meant  to  imt 
into  or  under''  (act),  "  so  that  the  object  was  wholly  covered  by 
the  inclosing  element"  (resultant  condition).  "  By  analogy, 
it  expressed  the  coming  into  a  iieio  state  of  life  or  experience'' 
(change  of  mental  or  moral  condition),  "  in  which  one  was 
as  it  were  inclosed  or  swallowed  up,  so  that  temporarily  or 
wholly  he  belonged  unto  it." 

This  metaphorical  or  secondary  use  of  ,?an-T:tw  can  by  no 
possibility  be  traced  to  any  act  by  which  the  resultant  con- 
dition is  induced,  but  is  traceable  solely  to  condition,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  inducing  act.  That  is  to  say,  it  springs 
out  of  the  ground-idea  of  the  word,  which  is  a  resultant  con- 
dition, and  therefore  the  word  cannot  express  "  act,"  and  must 
express  "  condition."  Words  which  express  act  have  their 
secondary  use  founded  in  the  characteristics  of  such  act. 
Thus,  "  I  plunged  into  dissipation,"  is.  grounded  in  the  literal 
characteristics  of  plunge — rapidity  and  violence.  "  I  dipped 
into  the  dissipation  of  the  city,"  is  grounded  on  the  literal 
characteristics  of  "dip" — limitation  in  force  and  entrance. 
"  Tempted,  Ifcll  into  dissipation,"  is  grounded  on  the  literal 
characteristics  of  "  fall" — suddenness.  "  I  glided  into  dissi- 
pation," is  grounded  on  the  literal  characteristics  of  "  glide" 
— irentle,  insensible  movement.  "  I  became  immersed  in  dis- 
sipation,"  is  grounded  in  no  literal  characteristics  of  plunge^ 
or  dip,  or  fall,  or  glide,  or  of  any  other  act  expressed  in  lan- 
guage. In  the  phrases,  "  soaked  with  rum,"  "  steep>ed  with 
love,"  ''imbued  with  truth,"  "  infected  with  vice,"  there  is  no 
grounding  in  act,  for  there  is  no  characterizing  act  in  "  soak," 
"  steep,"  "  imbue,"  "  infect."  These  words  represent,  liter- 
al! v,  resultant  condition  of  unexpressed  act,  and  in  their 
secondary  use  they  express  the  characteristics  of  condition 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  57 

and  not  of  action.  Now,  if  we  could  say,  "  immersed  with 
rum,  loith  love,  with  truth,  with  vice"  (wliicli  we  cannot 
under  the  sanction  of  usage),  we  would  express  not  the  char- 
acteristics of  an  act,  but  a  condition  characterized  by  the  in- 
fluence of  "  rum,"  "  love,"  "  truth,"  "  vice."  Now,  this 
failure  in  "immerse"  to  enter  into  such  usage  makes  it 
utterly  break  down  as  to  its  capacity  to  represent  fta-KriZu). 
For  such  usage  is  emphatically  the  usage  of  the  Greek  word. 
Its  characteristic  duty  is  to  give  the  fullest  development  to 
the  distinguishing  quality  of  its  adjunct.  For  this  duty  the 
literal  ground-idea  of  the  word  pre-eminently  qualifies  it, — 
namely,  a  condition  of  complete  envelopment.  An  object, 
which  is  in  a  condition  of  envelopment  within  a  fluid  or 
other  related  substance,  is  in  a  position  best  qualified  to  de- 
velop, exhaustively,  the  characteristic  quality  of  the  invest- 
ing medium.  That  this  is  true,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
is  obvious.  That  this  ofiice  is,  in  fact,  performed  by  ^aizriZu), 
is  shown  by  additional  statements  of  Dr.  Conant. 

He  says,  "  By  analogy,  it  expressed  the  coming  into  a  new 
state  of  life  or  experience,  in  which  one  was  as  it  were  inclosed 
and  swallowed  up,  so  that,  temporarily  or  permanently,  he 
belonged  wholly  to  it."  A  remarkable  deduction  from  a 
dipping  ! 

"Coming"  is  italicized.  Is  it  meant  to  indicate  that 
^ar.-cilo)  has  anything  to  do  with  the  manner  of  transition 
from  one  state  into  another?  whether  by  plunging,  dipping, 
sinking,  falling,  running,  walking,  or  "  coming"  in  any  other 
conceivable  way  ?  If  so,  nothing  could  be  more  groundless. 
"Baptized  into  anj^  state  of  life  or  experience"  indicates  a 
complete  change  of  condition  characterized  by  the  nature 
of  such  state  or  experience  whatever  it  may  be ;  as  to  the 
manner  of  "coming"  into  such  state  or  experience  the  lan- 
guage says  nothing.  To  be  "  inclosed  and  swallowed  up  as 
it  were''''  is  a  nonentity  by  self- declaration.  As  a  reality  it 
must,  without  a  miracle,  involve  misery  and  death  as  much 
as  Jonah's  being  "inclosed  and  swallowed  up"  in  the  whale's 
belly.  The  Greek  word,  in  secondary  use,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  "  inclosure  and  swallowing  up,"  except  as  allusively 


58  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

to  that  condition  of  things  in  physical  relations  by  which 
influence  is  fully  developed.  And  this  is  the  only  use  which 
is  made  by  Dr.  Conant  of  such  "  as  it  were"  condition;  for 
he  declares  that  the  only  reality  expressed  is,  that  a  man 
"baptized  into  a  new  state  of  life"  thenceforward  '•'■  belongs 
wholly  to  such  state,"  that  is  to  say,  is  brought  under  its  con- 
trolling influence.  If  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Classic  Bap- 
tism, then  I  do  not  know  how  to  express  it.  Again,  it  is 
said,  "  one  was  baptized  in  (there  is  no  authority  for  '  in,' 
it  should  be  by)  wine,  when  his  faculties  were  totally  over- 
borne and  ijrostrated  by  it."  Here  "  controlling"  influence  is 
directly  acknowledged  without  the  "  inclosure  and  swallow- 
ing up,"  which  has  no  existence,  in  such  usage,  but  in  a  dis- 
eased imagination.  So,  also,  "  one  was  baptized  with  soph- 
istries, when  his  mind  was  wholly  confounded  by  them." 
Here,  again,  we  have  the  unequivocal  acknowledgment  that 
/9a--r:'Cw,  in  such  usagc,  expresses  controlling  influence  char- 
acterized by  the  nature  of  the  adjunct.  And  this  receives 
distinct,  general  enunciation  in  the  words  immediately  fol- 
lowing,— "  the  relation  in  which  it  (/SaTrntw)  was  used  asso- 
ciated with  it,  for  the  time  being,  the  ideas  peculiar  to  that 
relation."  What  is  this  but  the  controlling  assimilative  in- 
fluence of  Classic  Baptism,  and  the  developed  "  qualitas," 
"  vis,"  "  Suva/icq,"  of  Judaic  Baptism  ? 

It  has  been  my  endeavor  to  give  a  faithful  exhibition  of 
the  teachings  of  Dr.  Conant  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  word. 
I  do  not  believe  that  a  comparative  study  of  all  those  teach- 
ings can  furnish  any  other  results.  When  the  error  as  to 
fianriZoj  expressing  act  is  corrected,  from  Dr.  Conant's  own 
teachings,  and  the  ground-thought  of  condition  (intusposition) 
is  substituted  for  "  act,"  and  when  the  farther  consequent 
correction  is  made,  namely,  the  rejection  of  act  as  the  basis 
of  interpreting  metaphor,  and  condition  as  the  source  of  in- 
fluence, is  substituted  for  it,  then  the  teachings  of  Dr.  Co- 
nant will  overturn  the  theory  and  establish  the  results  of 
Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism.  Verbally  Dr.  Conant  says,  that 
both  Stourdza  and  Carson  are  right,  ^uTtzi'^u)  had  but  one 


EXAMINATIONS   OP   CRITICISMS.  59 

meaning  for  two  thousand  years,  which  meaning  was  an  act 
equally  well  expressed  by  the  diverse  "  plunge"  and  "  dip;" 
in  reality  he  proves,  most  indubitably,  that  iSanriZoj  never  did 
express  an  ad  whether  of  "  plunge  "  or  "  dip,"  but  a  condition 
resultant  from  an  unexpressed  act. 

President  Alexander  Campbell,  Baptism,  p.  148.  "  I  would 
rather  say,  fianriZu)  is  a  word  oi  specific  action.^'  "  There  is  no 
need  of  any  other  proof  that  ^a-KziZcu  signifies  a  specific  act. 
If  then  ^a.r.ri'^u)  once  mean  dip,  it  never  can  mean  any  other 
acts  unless  those  actions  are  identically  the  same.  It  means 
to  dip  by  consent  of  the  whole  world,  and  being  a  specific 
word,  it  never  can  have  but  one  meaning." 

The  President  of  Bethany,  like  all  others,  under  the  iron 
stringency  of  theory  brings  out  specific  act  as  the  meaning, 
and  dip  as  its  representative,  only  to  sink  it  out  of  sight  in 
immerse  just  as  soon  as  he  comes  to  the  exposition  of  his- 
torical baptisms.  It  is  as  great  a  folly  to  take  pilunge,  dip, 
and  immerse  as  ground-thoughts,  and  to  expect  that  their 
language  development  would  be  the  same,  as  to  take  wheat, 
oats,  and  barley  for  seed,  and  expect  each,  in  harvest,  to  bear 
the  same  grain  as  each  other  one. 

Alexander  Campbell,  although  outside  of  the  regular 
Baptist  ranks,  stands  squarely  with  them  on  the  theoretic 
platform,  one  meaning,  and  that  meaning  a  specific  act. 

There  are  evidently  two  features  of  uniformity  among  all 
these  writers  :  1.  They  all  say  one  thing;  2.  They  all  work 
out  another  thing. 

We  are,  now,  prepared  to  "  see  all  the  lexicons,"  to  learn 
whether  lexicographers  indorse  the  one  thing  that  is  said, 
or  the  other  thing  that  is  done. 

LEXICONS. 

"All  the  lexicons"  cannot  be  produced;  but  if  any  one 
should  think  the  number  insufficient,  there  is  full  liberty  to 
add  indefinitely  to  the  list. 

Scapula  :  mergo  seu  immergo,  item  submerge,  item  abluo, 
lavo. 


60  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Stephens  :  mergo  seu  immergo,  ut  quae  tingendi  aiit  ablu- 
endi  gratia,  aqua  immergimns. 

BASiLEiB :  immergo. 

BuD^us:  immergo,  mergo:  pessundo,  demergo,  submergo, 
intingo  uiiguento,raedicor,  imbuo,  colore  inficio,  inficio. 

Stockius  :  lavo,  baptizo :  proprie;  est  immergere  ac  intiu- 
gere  iu  aquam;  est  lavare,  abluere  (tropice).  Per 
Synechdochen,  designat  totum  Johannis  miuisterium, 
miraculosam  Sanctus  S.  eiFnsionem. 

Passow:  (idr.Tu)  et  /JajTTt'Cw:  mergo,  immergo,  tiiigo — quod  sit 
immergendo ;  differt  a  duvat  quod  est  profundum  petere 
et  penitus  submergi. 

SuiCER:  mergo,  immergo,  submergo,  aqua  obruo;  abluo, 
lavo. 

ScHLEUSNER :  1.  Proprie ;  immergo  ac  intingo,  in  aquam  im- 
mergo. 2.  lavo,  abluo  (quia  hand  raro  aliquid  immergi 
ac  intingi  solet  ut  lavetur). 

ScHCETGEN :  mergo,  immergo,  abluo,  lavo,  largiter  profundo. 

Damm  :  ^arMlo}  et  fidizTu):  descendere  facio,  immergo,  intingo. 

Hedericus:  (1)  mergo,  immergo,  aqua  obruo,  (2)  abluo, 
lavo,  (3)  baptizo  signiticatu  sacro. 

"Wahl  :  a  jSr/TTToj,  mergo ;  saepius  mergo  in  'N.  T.  1.  immergo. 
2.  pro  vtTTTU}  lavo. 

Robertson's  Schrevelii  :  mergo,  lavo. 

Bretschneider  :  lavo,  abluo — immergo  in  aquas ;  submergo. 

Passow,  Leipzig,  1831 :  oft  und  wicderbolt  eintauchen,  un- 
tertauchen,  daher  benitzen,  anfeuchten,  begiessen, 
iibertr,  6t  (isfiavriaiitvoi,  betruukene,  die  sich  begoessen 
haben,  vino  madidi. 

Parkhurst  :  from  /Jarrrw  to  dip ;  to  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge 
in  water;  Mid.  and  Pass.,  to  wash  oneself,  be  washed, 
wash ;  to  baptize,  to  wash  in  or  with  water  in  token  of 
purification  from  sin  and  from  spiritual  pollution ;  to 
baptize  as  with  cloud  and  sea;  baptized  (not  unto,  as  our 
English  version  has  it,  but)  into  Moses,  i.  e.,  into  the 
Covenant,  &c.;  into  Christ,  &c.;  Figurative  of  the  Holy 
S[>irit,  &c, 

Robinson  :  to  dip  in,  to  sink,  to  immerse ;  to  wash,  to  lave, 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CKITICISMS.  61 

to  cleanse  by  washing ;  to  baptize,  to  administer  the  rite 
of  baptism. 

LiDDELL  AND  ScoTT :  to  dip  in  or  under  water ;  of  ships,  to 
sink  them ;  metaphorically  of  the  crowds  who  flocked 
hito  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  siege.  Pass.,  to  bathe; 
metaphorically,  soaked  in  wine;  over  head  and  ears  in 
debt ;  a  boy  drowned  in  questions.  II.  To  draw  water, 
wine,  &c. ;  III.  To  baptize. 

DoNEGAN :  to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid ;  to  submerge, 
to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate;  metonjmiically,  to 
drench  with  wine;  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw. 

Sophocles:  (/Sarrrw)  to  dip,  to  immerse;  to  sink,  to  be 
drowned  as  the  effect  of  sinking,  to  sink.  Tropically, 
to  afflict,  to  soak  in  liquor,  intoxicated ;  oppressed  by 
debt;  sunk  in  ignorance.  2.  Mid.,  to  perform  ablution, 
to  bathe.  II.  Bathed  in  tears,  to  plunge  a  knife.  4. 
Baptizo,  mergo,  mergito,  tingo,  or  tinguo,  to  baptize. 

A  glance  at  these  definitions  will  show  how  well  grounded 
was  Dr.  Carson's  acknowledgment,  that  "  all  the  lexicogra- 
phers" were  against  him  as  to  his  notion  that  ^a-ziXoj  had  no 
secondary  meaning.  This  is  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
theorists,  and  as  a  like  error  was  once  held  by  them  respect- 
ing ^dTZTw,  which  was  a  perpetually  occurring  vice  vitiating 
the  interpretation  of  that  word,  and  must  do  so  in  the  case 
of  every  other  word,  I  will  give  Dr.  Carson's  statement  in 
his  own  language,  italics,  and  capitals.  "  BAPTO,  the  root, 
I  have  shown  to  possess  two  meanings,  and  two  only,  to  dij) 
and  to  dye.  BAPTIZO,  I  have  asserted  has  but  one  signi- 
fication. It  has  been  formed  on  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  root,  and  has  never  admitted  the  secondary.  !N"ow,  both 
these  things  have  been  mistaken  by  writers  on  both  sides  of 
this  controversy.  It  has  been  generally  taken  for  granted 
that  the  two  words  are  equally  applicable  to  baptism ;  and 
that  they  both  equally  signify  to  di/e.  Both  of  them  are  sup- 
posed in  a  secondary  sense  to  signify  to  imsh  or  moisten.  I 
do  not  admit  this  with  respect  to  either.  I  have  already 
proved  this  with  respect  to  BAPTO ;  the  proof  is  equally 


62  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

strong-  with  respect  to  BAPTIZO.     My  position  is,  that  it 

ALWAYS    SIGNIFIES  TO  DIP :    NEVER    EXPRESSING    ANYTHING    BUT 

MODE.  Now,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  commen- 
tators against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say 
a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons. 
Many  may  be  startled  at  the  idea  of  refusing  to  submit  to 
the  unanimous  authority  of  lexicons,  as  an  instance  of  the 
boldest  skepticism.  Are  lexicons,  it  may  be  said,  of  no 
authority  ?  Now,  I  admit  that  lexicons  are  an  authority,  but 
they  are  not  an  ultimate  authority.  Lexicographers  have  been 
guided  by  their  own  judgment  in  examining  the  various  pas- 
sages in  which  a  word  occurs;  and  it  is  still  competent  for 
every  man  to  have  recourse  to  the  same  sources.  The  -mean- 
ing of  a  word  must  be  determined  by  an  actual  inspectioii  of  the 
passages  in  which  it  occurs,  as  often  as  any  one  chooses  to  dispute 
the  judgment  of  the  lexicographer.'' 

Dr.  Carson  and  friends,  thus,  confess  themselves  to  be  at 
war  with  "all  lexicographers"  as  to  /SarTiT"'  having  a  sec- 
ondary meaning.  But  this  confession  extends  its  influence 
beyond  the  simple  fact  of  error  as  to  secondary  meaning. 
Every  secondary  meaning  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
primary  meaning  by  a  natural  and  obvious  bond.  Now,  the 
theory  insists  upon  it,  that  the  primary  meaning  is  an  act 
■characterized  by  mode  and  nothing  but  mode,  and  that  such 
act  forms  the  basis  of  all  metaphorical  usage.  But  is  there 
anything  like  modality  of  act  in  the  secondary  meaning  of 
this  word?  There  is  none  whatever.  Lexicographers  give 
"wash,"  and  "cleanse,"  by  more  than  twenty  varying  or 
repeated  defining  terms,  as  the  secondary  meaning  of  this 
verb;  and  in  washing  or  cleansing,  there  is  no  modal  act, 
whether  of  dip,  plunge,  sink,  or  anything  else.  So  with  re- 
gard to  other  secondary  meanings — "  intingo  unguento,  in- 
ficio  colore,  largiter  profundo,  imbuo,  inficio,  medicor,  benit- 
zen,  anfeuchten,  begiessen,  betrinken,  to  afflict,  to  oppress, 
to  drown,  to  saturate" — these  are  the  farthest  possible  re- 
moved from  modal  act  as  their  basis.  We  then  conclude, 
that  the  lexicographers  not  only  difi'ered  from  the  theorists 
as  to  a  secondary   meaning,   but  that  the   nature   of  the 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  63 

secondary  meanings  assigned  by  them  to  the  word  prove 
that  they  dift'ered  from  tlie  theorists  entirely  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  primary  meaning.  Whether  this  conclusion  be  cor- 
rect or  not  we  shall  be  better  able  to  determine  by  looking, 
directly,  at  the  primary  meanings  assigned.  And  in  doing 
so,  we  find  that  lexicographers  furnish  us  with  mergo,  and  its 
compounds,  together  with  "  immerse,"  and  its  equivalents 
(in  which  there  is  no  modal  act),  more  than  thirty  times ; 
while  the  modal  act  in  Hugo,  "  dip,"  is  represented  only  some 
half  dozen  times;  "sink,"  three  times;  and  "plunge," 
scarcely  at  all.  This  rare  use  of  words  of  specific  act  to  de- 
fine this  term  (in  a  throng  of  words  utterly  devoid  of  modality 
in  the  act)  is  conclusive  proof,  that  those  who  used  them  did 
not  mean  to  use  them  in  their  modalit}',  but  for  other  con- 
siderations pertaining  to  them.  None  knew  better  than 
these  lexicographers,  that  the  same  word  could  neither  ex- 
press two  diverse  acts,  nor  a  modal  act  and  a  result  of  that 
or  any  other  act  as  its  primary  meaning.  They  could  not, 
therefore,  have  used  several  diverse  acts  to  express  the  mean- 
ing of  the  same  word.  The  point  in  which  these  and  other 
diverse  acts  meet  together  is  in  the  change  of  condition  char- 
acterized by  complete  envelopment,  which  change  of  condi- 
tion, and  not  act,  they  express,  mainly,  by  "  mergo."  There 
is  no  evidence,  worthy  of  consideration,  to  be  deduced  from 
the  lexicons  to  prove,  that  they  who  made  them  supposed  for 
a  moment  that  /SaTrrt'C^  expressed  act,  specific  or  general.  The 
evidence  is  all  one  way,  proving  that  it  expressed  result 
effected  by  unexpressed  act. 

But  several  words  may  express  condition,  and  have  envel- 
opment as  a  common  characteristic  of  that  condition,  and 
still  have  a  diverse  language  development.  This  is  true  of 
fioOiZo),  and  ^anriZu).  In  many  cases  of  primary  use  either  of 
these  words  might  be  indifferently  employed.  But  while 
there  are  few  cases  in  which  the  former  is  used  in  which  the 
latter  might  not  be  substituted  for  ir,  the  converse  is  by  no 
means  true ;  ^anu^u)  has  a  vastly  greater  and  more  diverse 
range  of  usage  than  (iudiZw.  And  while  the  latter  is  limited 
to  the  expression  of  destructive  influences,  the  former  has  no 


64  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

such  limitation ;  but  is  adapted  to  express  the  development 
of  any  influence  which  is  penetrating,  pervading,  and  assim- 
ilating in  its  character.  There  could  be  no  greater  mistake 
than  to  suppose  that  this  word  carried  simply,  or  carried 
always,  with  it  the  idea  of  envelopment.  BuOi'^u)  is  translated 
"  to  throw  into,  to  sink  into  the  deep."  Does  the  word  express 
the  modal  acts  to  throw,  to  sink?  Farther  illustration  may  be 
found  in  immerse  and  steep.  Both  of  these  words  are  charac- 
terized by  an  enveloping  element,  but  their  usage  differs  as 
widely  as  possible.  The  former  is  never  used  to  express  a 
development  of  the  quality  of  the  encompassing  medium ; 
the  latter  is  constantly  so  used.  And  to  perform  this  same 
duty  is  a  leading  characteristic  of  ;3a-T;tw,  which  "  immerse" 
is  just  as  incompetent  to  fulfil  as  it  would  be  to  perform  the 
functions  of  "steep." 

That  the  lexicographers  understood  that  the  function  of 
^aTTTcZo)  was  to  express  that  controlling  influence  which  so 
naturally  belongs  to  an  encompassing  medium  is  evident 
from  their  secondary  meanings,  which  could  only  originate 
in  such  a  source.  To  what  else  could  be  due  such  meanings 
as  "  to  cleanse  religiously,"  "  to  imbue,"  "  to  infect,"  "  to 
medicate,"  "to  saturate,"  "to  aiflict,"  "to  oppress,"  "to 
bewilder,"  "to  intoxicate?"  From  what  "specific  act" 
could  such  meanings  spring?  What  " specific  act"  is  re- 
vealed as  present  and  running  through  these  meanings  as 
their  unifying  hond  ? 

The  lexicons  and  the  theory  are  not  at  one. 

But  Dr.  Carson  says,  "This  word  has  been  formed  on  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  root,  and  has  never  admitted  the 
sccondarj'.  My  position  is  that  it  always  signifies  dip; 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode."  For  this  statement 
there  is  not  the  shadow  of  support,  as  seen  hy  the  fiicts  of 
usage  and  the  defining  terms  of  lexicographers.  The  re- 
verse statement  would  be  far  nearer  the  truth,  if  indeed  it 
be  not  the  absolute  truth.  There  is  no  evidence  that  liaTzriZut 
does  ever  give  expression  to  dip  in  its  specific  character. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  it  expresses  modal  act  of  any  kind. 
There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  "  this  word  has  been 


EXAMINATIONS    OF    CRITICISMS.  65 

formed  on  the  primary  meaning  of  the  root."  There  is,  I 
think,  conclusive  evidence  to  the  contrary.  It  is  incredible 
that  a  second  word  should  be  created  which  was  to  be  the 
simple  ditto  of  one  already  existing.  The  whole  history  of 
the  word  declares  that  what  was  a  priori  incredible  has,  in 
realitj^,  no  existence.  The  attributes  of  a  dipping — feeble- 
ness and  evanescence — nowhere  attach  themselves  to  the 
usage  of  this  word.  On  the  other  hand,  the  general  char- 
acteristics of  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  root  appear  in 
the  boldest  relief  through  all  the  history  of  the  word.  I  say 
the  general  characteristics,  for,  of  course,  it  can  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  specialty  of  ^dnrcu  second  in  the  direction  of 
(Eyeing,  staining,  coloring,  &c.  But  this  being  laid  aside,  we 
have  an  object  placed  within  an  enveloping  medium,  by  an 
unexpressed  act,  without  limitation  of  time  as  to  its  continu- 
ance, for  the  purpose  of  developing  the  quality  of  the  en- 
compassing element  by  its  penetrating,  pervading^  and  as- 
similating the  object  to  itself  alike  in  iSaKzl^u)  and  in  pjdizxm 
second.  2.  And  as  in  the  case  of  ^drixin  second^  we  have,  in 
progressive  usage,  the  encompassing  feature  of  the  influential 
agency  laid  aside  and  qualities  of  like  characteristics  devel- 
oped, in  any  way,  harmonious  with  their  nature;  so  is  it 
with  [ianriZoi.  BaizTi^u)  is  an  extension  of  /Sctrrrw  second  (its  pre- 
occupied dye-tub  excluded),  with  all  its  rights  and  privileges 
as  to  freedom  of  act  and  rejection  of  envelopment,  and  ad- 
vancing to  give  full  development  to  characteristic  qualities, 
powers,  and  influences  over  appropriate  objects. 

Few,  I  think,  can  look  at  the  usage  o^  (idnru}  first,  and  /Sarrw 
second,  and  doubt  where  the  immediate  relationship  of /3a;r-!'C«> 
is  to  be  found.  This  view  harmonizes  with  that  of  Gram- 
marians who  derive  /SaTrrt'^w  from  fidTntK,  a  derivative  from 
(idTZTto  second.  The  Hindoo  theory,  which  rests  the  world  on 
the  back  of  a  tortoise,  is  as  just  as  that  which  rests  the  usage 
of  /SaTTTttw  on  dip.  Whether  Professor  Arnold  still  thinks 
that  there  is  an  elephantine  power  in  "plunge,  literal  and 
universal,"  to  uphold  the  theory,  when  that  of  the  tortoise 
fails,  I  do  not  kuow. 


66  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 


WANT    OF    GENERALIZATION. 

The  definitions  of  this  word  as  given  by  the  lexicons  are 
too  individual  and  isolated.  They  are  often  very  alien  from 
each  other  in  some  outstanding  features,  and  do  not  present 
an  obvious  radical  unity.  There  is  a  want  of  generalization 
which  would  group  the  various  cases  together  under  some 
common  characteristic.  This  is  necessary  when  the  same 
word  is  defined  by  mcrgo^  im-mcrgo,  suh-iiiergo^  dc-mergo,  jies- 
sundo,  aqua  obruo,  descender e  facio,  plunge,  sink,  dip.  Dr.  Car- 
son attempts  to  efiect  such  generalization  by  swallowing  up 
all  other  terms  in  "  dip."  He  might  as  well  attempt  to  put 
the  millions  of  London  into  one  room,  eight  by  ten.  Hia 
own  friends  begin  to  feel  the  folly  of  this  and  shrink  back 
from  a  "senseless  dipping."  Professor  Arnold  would 
remedy  this  error  by  substituting  "plunge."  But  "the 
venerable  Booth"  says  that  this  is  only  exchanging  that 
which  is  "  senseless"  for  something  which  is  "  ridiculous." 
Dr.  Conant  proposes  to  remedy  the  difficulty  through  "  im- 
merse," used  in  a  double  sense,  now  as  expressive  of  act 
{put  into),  and  now  of  condition  (jyiU  under),  using  the  one  or 
the  other  as  the  exigency  of  the  case  may  demand.  But 
this  is  only  a  fruitless  attempt  to  substitute  the  impossible  for 
what  his  friends  have  condemned  as  "senseless"  and 
"  ridiculous."  I  submit,  with  cheerful  deference,  to  all  who 
are  disposed  to  examine  the  facts  of  the  case,  Avhether  the 
true  and  only  element  of  unity  in  such  defining  terms  is  not 
found  in  inness  of  condition — mersion.  If  this  be  true,  then 
they  should  be  grouped  together  under  such  ground-thought. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  defining  terms,  such  as  "  iu- 
tingo  ungLiento,  medicor,  imbuo,  colore  inficio,  inficio" 
(Budffius);  "benitzen,  anfeuchten,  begiessen,  betrinkeu" 
(Passow,  Franz);  "flocking  crowds,  soaked  in  wine,  over 
head  and  ears  in  debt,  drowned  in  questions"  (Liddell  and 
Scott);  "soak  thoroughly,  drench  with  wine,  saturate" 
(Donegau);  "to  be  drowned  (as  effect),  to  afflict,  to  soak 
in  liquor,  to  intoxicate,  to  oppress,  to  sink  in  ignorance" 
(Sophocles);  which  require  another  generalization.     These 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  67 

are  all  cases  which  indicate  not  an  act  to  be  done,  but  an 
end  to  be  accomplished,  an  influence  or  quality  to  have  its 
highest  development. 

Nothing  is  more  obvious  than  that  a  condition  of  mersion 
is  calculated  to  influence  the  object  in  such  mersion,  in  the 
completest  degree,  by  such  quality  as  may  belong  to  the 
investing  element.  Hence  proceeds  the  secondary  mean- 
ing of  controlling  influence  eftected  in  other  ways  than  by 
mersion.  Some  of  the  lexicographers  tell  us  expressly,  that 
it  is  on  this  feature  that  they  ground  their  secondary  moan- 
ing. Thus  Schleusner  says,  "  Lavo,  abluo,  quod  hand  rare 
aliquid  immergi  ac  intingi  solet  ut  lavetur;"  and  Stephens, 
in  like  manner,  says,  "Ut  qu?e  tingendi  aut  ablueudi,  gratia 
aqua  immergimus."  While  washing  or  ablution  may  be 
secured  by  putting  a  thing  into  water,  it  is,  also,  true  that  it 
may  be  and  commonly  was  efleeted  otherwise ;  and  in  re- 
ligious washings  and  ablutions  was  almost  universally 
efleeted  in  other  ways.  It  is  also  true,  that  this  secondary 
meaning  of"  washing,"  "  cleansing"  (so  universally  ascribed 
by  lexicographe'rs  to  this  word),  applies  to  religious  purifica- 
tions. I  do  not  know  of  a  single  instance  in  Classic,  Jewish, 
or  Christian  writings  in  which  /SaTrrt'Co  is  used  to  denote  a 
physical  cleansing.  It  is  expressly  stated  in  some  of  the 
lexicons,  that  it  was  religious  washings  which  they  had  in 
view.  Thus  Hedericus  says,  "  baptizo,  significatu  sacro;" 
and  Parkhurst  says,  "  To  wash  in  or  with  water  in  token  of 
purification  from  sin  and  spiritual  pollution." 

The  various  defining  terms,  now  under  consideration,  have 
no  possible  connection  with  the  modality  of  act  either  in 
"  dip"  or  in  "  plunge."  That  they  do  unite  together  under 
influence,  characterized  by  thoroughness  and  assimilation, 
will,  I  think,  be  the  judgment  of  all  outside  of  the  theory. 
And  under  this  ground-thought  they  should  be  classified. 

The  appropriation  of  /SaTrrj'Ctu,  by  Classic  writers,  to  ex- 
press the  influence  of  wine  when  drunk,  is  so  frequent  and 
so  absolute,  that  it  fairly  claims  the  right  and  power  to  ex- 
press that  influence  directly;  and, in  like  manner,  this  same 
word  is  so  frequently  and  absolutely  used,  both  by  Jewish 


68  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

and  Christian  writers,  in  religious  rites,  that  it,  no  less  justly, 
claims  the  right  and  power  to  express,  directly,  the  purifying 
influence  (ceremonially  or  symbolly)  of  such  rites. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  we  are  brought,  after 
"seeing  all  the  lexicons,"  is  this:  We  may  and,  in  my 
judgment,  must  define  substantially  thus :  I.  BAUTIZ^,  TO 
MERSE :  (To  effect  the  intusposition  of  an  object  within  a 
closely  investing  element,  by  any  competent  act  or  acts,  for 
an  indefinite  time.) 

II.  TO  BAPTIZE :  (To  effect  a  mersive  (complete  and 
assimilative)  influence,  thoroughly  changing  the  condition 
(whether  physical,  mental,  or  moral),  without  limitation  in 
the  act,  in  the  time  of  continuance,  or  in  the  character  of 
the  influence.) 

III.  (1)  To  INTOXICATE ;  (2)  To  PURIFY,  Ceremonially  or 
symbolly. 

How  much  this  decision,  of  the  lexicons,  differs  from  that 
to  which  we  were  conducted,  by  usage,  in  Classic  and 
Judaic  Baptism,  I  leave  for  others  to  determine.  It  may  be 
assumed,  however,  that  the  theorists  will  no  longer  say  that 
we  fled  from  the  lexicons  to  usage  because  "  all  the  lexicog- 
raphers were  against  us."  And  if  any  should  feel  that  the 
gratification  of  their  desire  "  to  be  assailed  by  Scapula  and 
Stephens"  has  brought  big  rocks  into  uncomfortable  prox- 
imity to  their  "  position,"  they  must  not  complain  of  those 
who  have  obligingly  met  their  earnest  request. 

BAPTIST   QUARTERLY — "  UNLEARNED   AND    HALF   LEARNED." 

"  J.  T,  C,"  in  another  article  of  the  Baptist  Quarterly, 
says :  "  It  is  not  creditable  to  our  religious  journalism  that 
such  works  as  Mr.  Dale's  Classic  Baptism  should  find  coun- 
tenance or  favor  in  any  quarter.  Such  a  caricature  of  philo- 
logical discussion  has  any  but  a  healthy  influence  on  the 
field  of  scientific  inquiry,  and  tends  only  to  embitter  denomi- 
national strife.  We  feel  assured  that  the  scholarship  of  the 
country  silently  condemns,  as  it  sometimes  does  audibly, 


EXAMINATIONS   OF   CRITICISMS.  69 

such  aiiemjyis  to  impose  07i  the  unlearned  and  the  half  learned^ 
It  appears  to  be  singularly  difficult  for  "  J.  T.  C."  and  his 
friends  to  harmonize  in  their  estimate  of  the  demerits  of 
«  Mr.  Dale's  works." 

A  Baptist  theological  professor,  and  a  particular  friend  of 
"  J.  T.  C,"  thus  writes  in  this  same  Baptist  Quarterly : 
"  Men  eminent  in  the  pulpit  and  the  lecture-room  have  been 
unable  adequately  to  express  their  admiration  of  the  extra- 
ordinary skill  and  learning  which  Mr.  Dale  has  brought  to 
his  task,  and  their  delight  at  the  accession  to  their  ranks  of 
this  new  and  potent  ally.  Mr.  Dale  must  not  be  deceived 
by  this  multitudinous  din  of  applause." 

The  N'ational  Baptist  mentions  the  names  of  some  of  those 
"  unlearned  and  half  learned  men  imposed  upon  by  Classic 
Baptism."  They  are  "Jonathan  Edwards,  President  of 
Washington  and  Jefferson  College,  Pennsylvania;  Thomas 
H.  Skinner,  Professor  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  !N'ew 
York;  William  S.  Plummer,  Professor  of  Columbia  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  South  Carolina ;  Charles  Hodge,  Professor 
of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  Kew  Jersey;  Lyman 
Coleman,  Professor  of  La  Fayette  College ;  and  many 
others;"  among  which  "many  others,"  the  ISTational  Baptist 
might  have  enumerated  Bishop  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania; 
Bishop  Coxe,  of  New  York;  Bishop  Clarke,  of  Rhode 
Island;  Bishop  Cummins,  of  Kentucky;  Bishop  Lee,  of 
Delaware;  Bishop  Simpson,  M.  E.,  of  Pennsylvania;  Bishop 
Scott,  M.  E.,  of  Delaware;  and  scores  of  like  "unlearned 
and  half  learned  men,"  just  the  people  (?)  to  be  imposed 
upon  by  "a  caricature  of  philological  discussion." 

And  those  weeklies,  monthlies,  and  quarterlies,  East, 
West,  ISTorth,  and  South,  which  have  brought  "discredit" 
upon  our  religious  journalism  by  showing  "  countenance 
and  favor"  to  Mr.  Dale's  works,  will  please  take  warning, 
and  hereafter  forever  hold  their  peace,  or  speak  in  that 
vocabulary  which  proves  membership  in  "  the  scholarship 
of  the  country"  by  crying,  "trickster,"  "  thimblerigger," 
"  caricaturist,"  "  impostor,"  and  "  ignoramus." 


70  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

To  these  remarks  on  things  adjacent  to  the  special  point 
of  our  investigation  I  will  only  add  that  I  am  well  convinced 
that  "J.  T.  C."  can  write  on  this  subject  something  better 
than  "  a  philological  caricature."  And  should  it  please  him 
BO  to  do,  he  will  find  that  (however  incompetent  the  present 
writer  may  be)  there  are  four  thousand  "  mere  country  pas- 
tors" in  the  Presbyterian  church,  who,  coming  dusty  and 
bronzed  from  the  prairie  and  the  mountain,  from  the  cross- 
road and  the  log  cabin,  from  the  coal  mine  and  the  gold 
digging,  are  fully  competent  "  to  read,  mark,  and  inwardly 
digest"  anything  which  he  may  write,  without  danger  of 
being  imposed  upon  by  "unlearned  or  half  learned"  lucu- 
brations, or,  even,  by  theories  learnedly  sustained  against 
the  laws  of  language  and  the  teachings  of  the  word  of 
God. 


JOHANNIC  BAPTISM 

CONSIDERED   IN   ITS   NATURE   AND   AS   ILLUSTRATIVE   OF   THE 

USAGE  or 

B A  nr I zsi. 


Various  Vieivs. 

JoHANNic  Baptism  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. Ill  connection  with  this  baptism  we  meet  for  the  first 
time  with  the  Greek  word  /Ja-n'Cw  as  employed  by  inspired 
men.  And  the  related  words,  fiannaTijc;  and  ^dr.riffiia,  we 
meet,  chronologically,  for  the  first  time  in  any  writings. 
This  fact  is  of  the  highest  importance.  It  is  an  assertion  by 
inspired  writers  of  the  highest  sovereignty,  within  the  realm 
and  laws  of  language,  to  use,  to  modify,  or  to  form  words 
according  to  the  exigencies  created  by  the  utterance  of  in- 
spired truth.  'Bo  thoughtful  man  will  claim  for  inspired 
men  an  arbitrary  authority  over  the  usage  or  meaning  of 
words.  And  no  wise  man  will  attempt  to  fetter  these  writers 
to  a  sterile  usage  of  words  and  meanings  antedating  the 
fruitful  thoughts  of  inspiration.  With  the  most  unbounded 
confidence  in  the  ipsissima  verba,  of  inspiration  as  well-chosen 
words,  having  a  precise  meaning  which  may  be  learned  by 
the  use  of  proper  helps  without  and  within  the  Scriptures, 
in  the  docile  looking  for  light  unto  their  only  wise  Author, 
I  will  endeavor,  thus,  to  learn  the  scriptural  meaning  and 
usage  of  that  word  which  is  the  special  end  of  this  inquiry. 

John's  baptism  on  its  first  announcement  awakened  in- 
quiry as  to  its  origin — "  Was  it  from  heaven  or  of  men?" 
and,  also,  as  to  its  nature — "  What  baptism  dost  thou  bap- 
tize?"    But  it  was  not  until  more  than  a  thousand  years 

(71) 


72  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

after  bis  ministry  had  been  completed,  tbat  any  one  thought 
it  worth  while  to  ask — "  In  what  mode  did  John  use  water 
in  ritual  baptism?"  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
we  can  find  satisfactory  answers  to  the  evidently  important 
and  scriptural  inquiries  as  to  the  authority  and  nature  of 
John's  baptism ;  and  if  the  inquiry  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  he  used  the  symbol  water  be  either  important  or 
scriptural,  we  shall,  no  doubt,  also,  find  its  solution.  Should 
we,  however,  be  disappointed  in  this,  we  may  bear  such  dis- 
appointment with  equanimity  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  re- 
jected from  record  by  inspiration,  and  that  God's  people 
never  felt  the  need  of  making  inquiry  about  it  for  the  space 
of  a  thousand  and  a  half  thousand  years. 

Opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  pow-er  of  John's  baptism  has 
been  diverse.  This  diversity,  however,  has  not  arisen,  so 
much,  under  an  independent  examination  of  the  terms  and 
circumstances  of  the  baptism,  as  under  the  demands  of  a 
previously  conceived  religious  system. 

Early  Christian  writers  agreed,  very  generally,  in  saying, 
that  John's  baptism  was,  in  its  nature,  superior  to  Jewish 
baptism,  but,  no  less,  inferior  to  Christian  baptism.  Their 
sentiment  is  well  expressed  b}^  Chrj'sostom  in  the  following 
passage :  "  The  baptism  of  John  was,  indeed,  far  superior 
to  the  Jewish  but  inferior  to  ours ;  it  was  a  kind  of  bridge 
between  the  two  baptisms  leading  from  that  to  this."  INIore 
particularly  they  believed,  that  John's  baptism  was  destitute 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  power  to  remit  sins.  If  this  lan- 
guage be  interpreted  according  to  its  terras  it  is  obvious, 
that  "baptism"  can  by  no  possibility  refer  to  "the  mode 
and  nothing  but  the  mode"  of  using  the  water.  According 
to  the  theory,  Jewish  baptism,  and  John's  baptism,  and 
Christian  baptism,  were  pure  and  identical  forms ;  but  ac- 
cording to  these  early  Greek  writers  they  were  characterized 
not  by  uniformity  but  by  divcrsit}-.  Doubtless  this  may  all 
be  rectified  by  the  introduction  of  "figure"  (that  servant  of 
all  work  to  the  theory)  by  which  one  thing  is  made  to  take 
the  place  of  some  other  thing;  but  it  has  been  shown,  that 
words  expressive  of  definite  action  or  of  condition,  do  come 


VARIOUS  VIEWS.  73 

to  express,  directly,  the  effects  resultant  from  such  action  or 
condition ;  and,  in  particular,  it  has  been  shown,  that  this  is 
true  of  ^oKxi^u).  Until  this  is  disproved  these  early  writings 
must  be  allowed  to  stand  as  unfigured  utterances  when  they 
declare,  that  baptism  Judaically  administered  differed  from 
baptism  Johannically  administered ;  and  baptism  Johannic- 
ally  administered  differed  from  baptism  Christianly  admin- 
istered; and  baptism  Christianly  administered  differed  from 
both  the  others.  They  speak  of  ashes,  blood,  and  water  as 
possessed  of  diverse  powers  in  their  ritual  use,  and  therefore 
effecting  diverse  conditions  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom 
they  are  ritually  applied.  These  diverse  conditions  they 
designate  as  Jewish  baptism,  John's  baptism.  Christian  bap- 
tism. And  I  do  not  see  but  that  it  must  so  stand,  inasmuch 
as  the  authority  to  revise  and  correct  their  writings  has  not 
been  bequeathed  to  any  after  generation. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  adopts,  unreservedly,  these 
views  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  The  Tractarians  share, 
with  as  little  reserve,  in  the  same  sentiments.  The  Re- 
formers, generally,  did  not  adopt  these  views,  or,  at  least, 
not  without  both  modihcations  and  differences.  Calvin- 
says :  "  This  is  the  peculiarity  of  Baptism,  that  it  is  said  to 
be  an  outward  representation  of  repentance  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  ISTow,  as  the  meaning,  and  power,  and  nature, 
of  that  baptism  are  the  same  as  ours,  if  we  judge  of  the 
figure  by  its  true  import,  it  is  incorrect  to  say,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  John  is  different  from  the  baptism  of  Christ.  It 
ought  not  to  have  any  weight  with  us  that  an  opinion  has 
long  and  extensively  prevailed  that  John's  baptism  differs 
from  ours.  "We  must  learn  to  form  our  judgment  from  the 
matter  as  it  stands,  and  not  from  the  mistaken  opinions  of 
men."  Lightfoot  says,  "  The  baptism  of  John  and  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Apostles  was  one  and  the  same." 

Among  more  modern  writers  subordinate  differences  are 
revealed.  Dr.  Halley  says  :  "  To  be  baptized,  then,  was  to 
be  initiated  as  a  disciple  or  learner  of  the  new  doctrine — the 
speedy  coming  of  Christ.  Of  this  baptism  of  John  Ave  have, 
I  think,  sufficient  evidence  for  determining  two  particulars, 


74  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

the  one  that  it  was  indiscriminately  administered  to  all  ap- 
plicants, the  other  that  it  effected  no  change,  moral  or 
spiritual,  upon  their  minds.  The  baptism  of  John  and  of 
the  disciples  during  our  Lord's  personal  ministry  were 
really  Christian  baptisms."  Dr.  Miller,  on  the  other  hand, 
says  :  "  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism."  Pro- 
fessor Wilson  (Royal  College,  Belfast)  says  :  "  The  baptism 
of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  whether  adminis- 
tered by  John,  or  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  uniformly  appears 
in  the  character  of  a  rite,  which  foes  and  followers  equally 
comprehended." 

Baptist  writers,  generally,  identify  the  baptism  of  John 
with  the  baptism  of  Christianity.  Thus  Stovel  says :  "  The 
baptized  person  was  committed  to  all  the  intents  and  pur- 
poses of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  dealing  with  indi- 
viduals, and  setting  them  apart  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
because  of  their  personal  faith  and  repentance,  commenced 
with  John,  it  formed  the  peculiarity  of  his  ministration." 
Dr.  Carson,  as  usual,  is  very  positive  and  very  explicit;  he 
says :  "  What  is  baptism  in  one  case  is  baptism  in  another. 
Whatever  difference  there  may  be,  in  any  other  respect,  be- 
tween the  baptism  of  John  and  the  baptism  of  Christ,  there 
could  he  no  difference  in  the  7node."  Inasmuch  as  this  writer 
believes  that  baptism  is  essentially  mode  and  its  conception 
is  exhausted  in  its  mode,  there  could  not  possibly  be  any 
difference  between  these  two  baptisms,  or  any  other  con- 
ceivable number  of  baptisms  from  any  quarter.  But  the 
early  Cliristian  writers  declare,  with  one  voice,  that  these 
baptisms  were  diverse.  The  conceptions,  then,  of  baptism 
entertained,  respectively,  by  these  writers  and  by  Dr.  Car- 
sou  must  have  been  radically  different.  To  attempt  to  unify 
these  statements  by  saying,  that  the  Patrists  did  not  refer  to 
the  mode  when  they  said  that  one  of  these  baptisms  differed 
from  the  other,  is  to  make  them  say,  on  the  princii)les  of  the 
theory,  that  John's  baptism  (mode)  differed  from  Christian 
baptism  (mode),  yet  John's  mode  (baptism)  was  the  same 
as  the  Christian  mode  (baptism).  Robert  Hall  thinks  that 
there  is  a  contrast  rather  than  an  agreement  between  the  two 


VARIOUS  VIEWS.  75 

baptisms — "  The  baptism  instituted  by  our  Lord  is  in  Scrip- 
ture distinguished  from  that  of  the  Forerunner  by  the  su- 
perior effects  with  which  it  was  accompanied,  so  that  instead 
of  being  confounded  they  are  contrasted  in  the  Sacred 
Writings." 

The  diversity  exliibited  in  some  of  these  statements  is 
more  apparent  than  real.  The  writers  have  not  the  same 
thing  in  view.  The  baptism  of  John  (I  mean  baptism  prop- 
erly and  scripturally  speaking,  not  a  modal  use  of  water) 
agreed,  in  certain  respects,  with  Christian  baptism  (again 
rejecting  all  reference  to  a  modal  use  of  water),  while  in  cer- 
tain other  respects  it  differed  from  it.  It  is  proper  to  say, 
that  the  two  baptisms,  while  distinguished  by  distinctive 
characteristics,  were  in  perfect  harmony  with  each  other. 
It  is  not  proper  to  say,  that  they  are  the  same  baptism  in 
all  respects,  l^or  are  they  so  far  the  same  that  they  could 
be  interchanged.  Christian  baptism  is  complementary  of 
John's  baptism. 

The  phraseology,  "Baptism  of  John,"  implies  a  distinctive 
difference  between  this  baptism  and  other  baptisms,  and  es- 
pecially between  this  baptism  and  Jewish  baptism,  Avith  which 
it  was  brought  into  contact  and  contrast.  It  could  not  be 
brought  into  comparison  with  Christian  baptism,  for  that 
baptism  had  not  yet  received  development.  The  discrimina- 
ting difference  between  this  and  other  baptisms  must  be 
sought  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  only  two  elements  entering 
into  the  expressive  phrase — "  John's  baptism."  It  must  be 
found  in  John  personally  or  in  the  baptism.  That  there  is 
room  for  discriminating  between  John  as  a  preacher  of  bap- 
tism and  the  administrator  of  the  ritual  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, and  Christ  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  divine  executors  of 
baptism,  is  most  obvious.  This  amazing  diff'erence  is  most 
pointedly  stated  by  John  himself.  While  he  places  the  bap- 
tism preached  by  him  in  immediate  contact  with  Christ  and 
of  its  proper  nature  preparative  for  and  essential  to  welcom- 
ing him  at  his  coming,  he  does  at  the  same  time  separate 
the  ritual  use  of  water  (grounded  on  this  baptism  preached), 
both  as  to  its  nature  and  power  by  a  limitless  distance  from 


76  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Christ  and  his  kingdom.  But  the  phrase  under  considera- 
tion as  used  in  Scripture,  never  raises  the  question  as  to  the 
measure  of  power  invested,  personally,  in  John,  or  the  Jew- 
ish administrator,  as  causative  of  the  diiference  in  their  re- 
spective baptisms.  No  solution  of  the  question  as  to  the 
differential  nature  of  John's  baptism  is  to  be  found  in  the 
powers  of  the  administrator.  The  difference  must  be  found 
in  the  baptism.  But  if  in  the  baptism,  yet,  not  in  the  act 
by  which  the  baptism  is  effected.  It  is  in  proof  that  the 
form  of  act  by  which  a  baptism  is  effected  is  a  matter  of  in- 
finite indifference.  TTie  Jews  used,  indifferently,  the  varied 
action  of  sprinkling,  pouring,  washing,  in  effecting  their 
baptism ;  and  John  might  use  any  one  of  these  or  any  other 
act,  and  it  could  not  be  a  discriminating  mark  of  his  baptism, 
for  there  is  no  such  element  entering  into  the  essence  of 
baptism.  The  Jew^s  used,  indifferently,  ashes,  blood,  fire, 
water,  in  eflecting  their  baptism;  and  John  might  have  used 
some  one  of  these  or  some  other  thing  in  his  baptism,  and 
the  specialty  of  his  baptism  have  not  been,  thereby,  deter- 
mined. The  instrumental  means  may  determine  the  char- 
acter of  a  baptism,  but  does  not  do  so  necessarily.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Jew  used  water  in  his  baptism,  and  John, 
likewise,  used  water  in  his  baptism ;  still,  their  baptisms 
were  not  the  same.  The  Jew  may  have  administered  his 
baptism  to  men,  women,  and  children,  beds,  pots,  and  cups; 
and  John  may  have  baptized  only  men  or  pots;  and  this 
would  not  have  determined  the  peculiarity  of  his  baptism. 
The  subjects  of  baptism  do  not,  bj^  any  necessity,  control 
the  baptism.  Although  they  may,  by  their  nature,  limit  the 
application  of  the  baptism.  Beds,  pots,  and  cups  were,  in 
their  nature,  well  adapted  to  be  objects  of  Jewish  baptism; 
but  that  same  nature  excluded  them,  in  the  most  absolute 
manner,  from  John's  baptism. 

Bengel,  speaking  of  the  distinguishing  character  of  John's 
baptism,  says:  "At  the  baptism  of  repentance  men  con- 
fessed their  sins,  at  the  baptism  of  Christ  they  confessed 
Christ."  Olshausen,  most  wisely,  disjoins  and  j^et  conjoins 
preaching  baptism  and  ritual  baptism :  "  It  would  readily 


THE   ESSENCE   OF   BAPTISM.  77 

occur  to  him  to  represent  by  a  symbolical  rite  the  repentance  which 
he  preached.  The  Divine  Spirit,  who  quickened  him,  was 
his  guide  in  this  institution  as  in  all  that  he  did;  he  was  sent 
to  baptize  with  water.  The  baptism  of  John  cannot  be 
identical  with  the  sacrament  of  Baptism,  which  was  not 
ordained  till  after  the  resurrection.  It  was  a  washino;  of 
repentance,  but  not  a  washing  of  regeneration." 

THE   ESSENCE    OF    BAPTISM. 

The  absolute  exclusion  of  "  pots,  cups,  and  couches," 
"legs,  breasts,  and  shoulders"  of  sacrificial  victims  from 
"John's  baptism"  turns,  wholly,  on  the  nature  of  that  bap- 
tism, John  made  demand  for  repentance.  The  utensils  of 
domestic  life  and  the  elements  of  temple  service  could  make 
no  response  to  this  demand.  The  baptism  was  not  for,  and 
could  not,  possibly,  be  received  by  such  things. 

And,  here,  arises  the  question — Are  baptisms  distinguish- 
able not  b}'  the  form  of  act  by  which  they  are  effected,  not 
by  the  subjects  receiving  the  administration,  not  by  the  ele- 
ments used  in  the  service,  not  by  a  physical  envelopment  or 
otherwise,  but  by  a  distinctive  character,  whether  attained 
by  uniformity  or  diversity  in  any  or  all  of  these  particulars? 
And  does  this  distinguishing  character  constitute  the  very 
baptism,  so  that  as  it  is  present  or  absent,  the  baptism  has, 
or  has  not  an  existence  ?  We  answer  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative,  and  say,  that  the  phrase  "John's  baptism" 
neither  expresses  modal  action,  nor  fluid  envelopment,  but 
a  peculiar  character  or  condition,  separating  it,  in  nature, 
especially  from  Jewish  baptisms,  and,  in  general,  from  all 
other  baptisms  endlessly  diverse  in  character. 

It  may  be  proper  to  introduce,  here,  some  remarks  as 
illustrative  and  sustaining  these  positions.  That  a  baptism 
is  expressive  of  the  condition  of  an  object  brought  into  a 
state  of  physical  envelopment  by  any  competent  act,  for  an 
indefinitely  prolonged  period  of  time,  or  which  is  brought 
under  the  power  of  some  controlling  influence  without  actual 
or  suggested  envelopment,  is  a  truth  which  has  been  estab- 


78  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

lished,  ill  the  opinion  of  competent  judges,  by  an  amount 
of  evidence  seldom  brought  to  the  vindication  of  any  philo- 
logical question. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  when  a  baptism  is  spoken  of 
(the  character  of  which  is  not  unquestionably  determined), 
it  is  an  open  question,  whether  it  belongs  to  the  class  of  bap- 
tisms distinguished  by  plij'sical  envelopment,  or  to  that  class 
which  reje(its  physical  envelopment  and  presents  only  a  men- 
tal or  moral  condition,  the  result  of  some  controlling  and 
assimilating  influence.  And,  consequently,  when  Dr.  Car- 
son says,  in  reference  to  the  baptism  of  John  and  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ — "  What  was  baptism  in  one  case  is  baptism 
in  another,  there  could  be  no  diiference  in  the  mode" — he 
makes  tlie  most  unwarrantable  assumptions:  1.  That  the 
mere  use  of  the  word  baptism  in  any  number  or  variety  of 
cases  establishes,  in  all,  an  identity  of  character;  2.  That 
that  identit}'  is  exhibited  in  mode;  and  3.  That  that  mode 
is  a  dipping.  The  language  of  Scripture — "the  baptism  of 
John,"  "the  baptism  of  Moses,"  "the  baptism  of  Christ" — 
involves  of  necessity  discriminating  difference.  If,  now, 
this  discriminating  difference  be  not  exhausted  in  the  differ- 
ence of  persons — John,  Moses,  Christ — then  it  must  be  in 
the  baptism ;  but  if  in  the  baptism,  then  baptism  cannot  be 
modal  act  or  modal  envelopment,  for  such  things  do  not 
allow  of  any  discriminating  differences.  If  to  escape  this 
conclusion  it  should  be  said,  that  "  baptism"  may  include 
more  than  baptism^  it  may  take  in  appendages,  and  in  these 
the  difierence  may  be  found,  I  answer:  these  appendages 
are  essential  to  the  baptism  or  they  are  not;  if  they  are  es- 
sential, then  they  are  the  ba[)tism ;  if  they  are  not  essential, 
then  they  cannot  expound  the  differences  of  baptisms.  If  it 
should  be  said,  that  a  Hottentot  differs  from  an  Esquimaux, 
would  we  be  satisfied  that  this  statement  was  met  by  show- 
ing that  the  one  was  dressed  in  a  cotton  strip  and  the  other 
in  furs;  that  the  one  was  housed  in  an  open  kraal  and  the 
other  within  walls  of  solid  ice;  that  the  one  lived  on  fruits 
and  the  other  on  train  oil?  All  these  things  may  be  true, 
and  they  may  truly  expound  the  differences  in  clothing,  in 


ILLUSTRATION    FROM   CLASSIC   BAPTISMS.  79 

housing,  and  in  eating;  but  do  they  expound  the  differential 
characteristics  which  distinguish  a  Hottentot  from  a  Lap- 
lander? The  theor}^  claims  a  difference  for  its  baptism  as 
compared  with  the  baptism  of  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world. 
Would  it  be  judged  satisfactory  to  expound  this  difference 
as  consisting  in  the  wearing  in  one  case  a  water-proof  suit 
and  in  the  other  case  ordinary  apparel  ?  Would  anything 
be  considered  satisfactory  but  what  related  to  the  essence 
of  baptism?  If  not,  then,  when  the  Scriptures  teach  a  dif- 
ference between  the  baptism  of  Moses,  and  the  baptism  of 
John,  and  the  baptism  of  Christ,  we,  in  like  manner,  must 
insist  that  the  differences  shall  be  found  in  the  essentials  and 
not  in  the  accidents  of  these  baptisms.  The  necessity  which 
is,  here,  laid  upon  the  theory  for  departing  from  the  simple 
and  explicit  statement  of  the  Scriptures,  is  a  necessity  which 
is  found  to  be  evermore  recurring  in  its  history,  and  is  the 
most  conclusive  evidence  that  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
word  of  God. 

ILLUSTRATION   FROM   CLASSIC   BAPTISMS. 

In  farther  elucidation  and  vindication  of  this  position,  I 
would  refer  to  the  illustrative  Classic  Baptisms  of  Thebe, 
Ishmael,  and  Satyrus.  Were  these  baptisms  identical  or 
diverse  in  character?  Inasmuch  as  the  term  "baptism"  is 
applied  equally  to  each,  they  must  have  a  common  element 
establishing  a  generic  unity.  And  as  they  are  distinguished 
from  each  other  as  the  baptism  of  Thebe,  the  baptism  of 
Ishmael,  and  the  baptism  of  Satyrus,  we  look  for  differences 
which  shall  resolve  baptism  as  a  genus  into  its  species. 
Carson  says,  that  baptism  is  a  simple,  ultimate,  unresolvable 
element ;  that  baptism  is  baptism ;  that  mode  is  mode ;  that 
the  meaning  of  the  word  is  mode,  and  that  this  meaning 
was  never  changed.  If  this  be  true,  then,  this  mode  will  be 
found  in  all  these  baptisms,  and  such  mode  will  constitute 
the  baptism.  And,  as  matter  of  fact,  there  is  mode  in  each 
baptism ;  I  was  about  to  say,  that  it  was  found  in  the  com- 
mon handing  of  the  wine,  but  in  this  there  may  be  diversity ; 


80  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

I,  then,  fell  back  on  the  common  drinking  of  the  wine,  but, 
here,  there  is  no  absolute  assurance  against  diversity,  and 
rest  was  found  only  in  the  common  act  of  swallowing. 
This,  I  believe,  is  severely  modal,  a  simple,  ultimate,  unre- 
solvable  act,  and  which,  according  to  the  theory,  must  con- 
stitute the  baptism.  The  only  embarrassment  in  the  case  is 
to  show  that  the  modal  act  of  swallowing  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  modal  act  of  dipping,  whose  presence  or 
absence  we  are  told  makes  or  mars  a  baptism. 

If  this  can  be  done  the  theory  is  safe  so  far  as  the  bap- 
tisms of  Thebe,  of  Ishmael,  and  of  Satyrus  are  concerned. 

If  any  should  be  so  doubtful  of  the  success  of  such  an  at- 
tempt as  to  be  unwilling  to  wait  its  issue,  I  will  endeavor  to 
indicate  some  other  common  element  in  which  these  bap- 
tisms agree,  and  which  constitutes  the  justification  in  ap- 
plying a  common  name  to  cases  which  present  specific 
difiFerences. 

Historically  the  baptism  of  Thebe  was  by  wine,  which  she 
furnished  profusely  to  her  husband.  The  simple  drinking 
of  wine  will  not  eflPect  a  baptism,  nor  can  the  drinking  of 
any  quantity  eftect  a  dipping  or  an  envelopment;  but  pro- 
fuse drinking  will  so  develop  the  power  of  wine  as  to  bring 
the  mental  faculties  and  the  physical  powers  under  its  con- 
trol. This  thorough  change  of  condition  (the  passing  out  of 
a  condition  of  sobriety  into  a  condition  of  ebriety)  is  a  bap- 
tized condition.  It  is  so,  generically,  because  it  is  a  condi- 
tion eff<3cted  by  some  controlling  and  assimilating  influence; 
and  it  is  so,  specifically,  to  wit,  the  baptism  of  Thebe,  because 
it  is  a  specific  influence  effecting  a  specific  condition.  The 
wine-drinldng  causative  of  this  baptism,  and  the  drunken 
condition  caused  by  this  wine-drinking,  are  alike  inseparable 
from  this  Thebe  baptism.  The  one  cannot  be  without  the 
other.  If  the  peculiarity  which  marks  the  influence  of  the 
agency  is  known,  then  the  peculiarity  which  characterizes 
the  condition  is  equally  known. 

The  baptism  of  Ishmael  was  by  wine  like  that  of  Thebe, 
and  yet  was  not  specifically  the  same.  It  was  a  baptism  be- 
yond that  baptism.     It  was  a  development  of  the  power  of 


ILLUSTRATION    FROxM    CLASSIC    BAPTISMS.  81 

drunkenness  effecting  a  still  farther  and  peculiar  controlling 
influence  over  mind  and  body,  introducing  them  into  a  con- 
dition of  "  insensibility  and  sleep."  Now,  no  one  needs  to 
be  told,  that  there  is  an  amazing  difference  between  the  con- 
dition of  a  man  bewildered  in  mind  and  staggering  in  walk, 
and  a  man  lying  under  the  table  insensible  and  asleep.  "Wine 
enters  into  both  conditions  as  the  ruling  power;  in  the  one 
case  it  is  the  immediate  influence,  in  the  other  case  it  is  the 
proximate  influence ;  botlK  conditions  are  properly  called 
baptisms,  because  they  both  have  the  characteristic  of  con- 
dition resultant  from  some  controlling  influence ;  and  they 
are  speciflcally  diverse  baptisms,  because  the  specific  con- 
trolling influence  of  wine  over  a  sober  man  is  diverse  from 
the  specific  controlling  influence  of  drunkenness  over  an  in- 
toxicated man.  This  specific  diflerence  is  stated,  with  a  fjal- 
ness  and  a  clearness  beyond  which  language  cannot  go,  when 
we  are  told,  that  "  Ishmael  baptized  Gedaliah  by  drunken- 
ness into  insensibility  and  sleep."  The  statement  that  Ish- 
mael "baptized"  Gedaliah  conveys  no  specific  information; 
while  the  statement  that  "he  baptized  him  into  iy\ sensibility^^ 
has  a  sharpness  which  will  cut  its  way  irresistibly  through 
all  barriers  of  modal  act,  or  water  envelopment,  that  ever 
were  or  that  ever  can  be  constructed. 

The  baptism  of  Satyrus  exhibits  the  element  of  wine,  but 
not  as  the  controlling  power  effecting  the  baptism.  There 
was,  also,  in  it  "  insensibility  and  sleep,"  and  yet  not  of  the 
same  specific  character  with  that  which  is  effected  by  over- 
powering drunkenness.  There  was  not  enough  of  wine 
drunk  to  cause  ebriety,  consequently  that  w^as  not  the  bap- 
tism ;  if  there  was  no  ebriety,  then  there  was  no  baptism 
from  this  cause. 

But  there  was  a  baptism  of  Satyrus.  What  was  it?  It  was 
a  thoroughly  changed  condition  resultant  from  the  control- 
ling influence  of  an  opiate  drug  swallowed  by  being  mingled 
in  a  cup  of  wine.  In  these  facts  we  find  justification  for 
applying  the  generic  term  baptism  to  this  transaction,  be- 
cause there  is  a  condition  resultant  from  a  controlling  in- 
fluence which  has  left  its  characteristic  enstamped  upon  the 

6 


82  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

subject  of  its  power;  while  they,  also,  vindicate  the  dis- 
crimination of  this  baptism  as  the  baptism  of  Sati^rus,  from 
the  baptism  of  Jlicbe^  and  the  baptism  of  Ishmael,  because, 
specifically,  it  ranks  with  neither  of  these  baptisms. 

These  facts  show  in  the  most  indubitable  manner,  that 
where  the  same  fluid  element  is  present,  and  the  same  formal 
act  is  executed,  the  resultant  baptism  (not  something  else, 
some  appendage  or  accident,  but  the  very  baptism)  may  be 
essentially  diverse.  This  diversit}^  will,  ordinarily,  be  desig- 
nated with  clearness  by  the  simple  statement  of  the  power 
eflectiiig  the  baptism,  because  the  baptism  receives  its  char- 
acteristic from  the  characteristic  of  this  controlling  influence; 
but  if  this  baptizing  power  is  capable  of  producing  diverse 
conditions,  immediately  or  remotely,  then  a  specific  designa- 
tion may  be  required  in  addition  to  the  influence  itself. 
Thus,  the  remoter  wine  baptism  of  Ishmael  is  saved  from 
being  confounded  with  the  immediate  wine  baptism  of  Thebe 
by  the  superadded  statement,  that  it  was  remotely  by  wine 
and  immediately  "by  drunkenness  into  insensibility  and 
sleep." 

Can  anything  be  more  unwise  or  more  alien  from  outjut- 
ting  facts,  than  the  attempt  to  repudiate  the  distinctive  char- 
acter of  these  baptisms  by  the  round  assertion,  that  "  bap- 
tism in  one  case  is  baptism  in  another,  there  could  be  no 
difference  in  the  mode  ? " 

"these   BAPTISJMS    are   FIGUPtATIVE." 

An  attempt  is  made  to  get  rid  of  these  baptisms  and  bury 
them  (if  not  "  without  benefit  of  clergy,"  yet  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  clergy),  in  some  bottomless  abyss,  by  afiirming 
that  these  baptisms  are  "figurative."  If  by  this  term  is 
meant  that  these  are  not  actual  and  most  real  baptisms,  the 
statement  could  not  be  more  deeply  stamped  with  error.  Is 
not  the  condition  of  a  drunken  man,  of  a  sleeping  man,  of  a 
drugged  man,  a  most  substantial  reality  ?  If  it  is  meant  to 
say,  that  these  baptisms  are  not  physical  baptisms,  then, 
again,  I  reply,  the  error,  still,  is  as  profound  as  in  the  other 


DIVERSITY   OF  BAPTISMS.  83 

case.  Is  not  drunkenness  a  physical  condition?  Does  it 
not  affect  the  intellect  only  as  it  affects  the  physical  organs 
through  which  it  operates  ?  Is  not  this,  also,  true  of  sleep  ? 
And  is  it  not,  equally,  true  of  drugged  stupor?  Is  not  wine 
a  real,  substantial  fluid?  Is  not  opium  a  real  existence 
whose  solidity  may  be  seen,  and  felt,  and  weighed  in  the 
balances  ?  Do  fluids  and  solids  produce  purely  metaphysical, 
ideal,  unreal,  nonentical  conditions  ? 

Is  it  meant  to  say,  that  these  baptisms  are  not  "  dipping " 
baptisms  ?  Then,  the  response  may  be  given  with  a  smile : 
Certainly  if  they  are,  appearances  must  be  deceitful,  for  they 
have  any  other  appearance !  Is  it  meant  that  there  is  no 
physical  envelopment?  I  would  not  like  to  undertake  to 
prove  that  there  is,  but  I  would  like,  very  much,  to  see  such 
attempt  made  on  the  part  of  those  who  affirm  that  "  baptism 
in  one  case  is  baptism  in  another;  there  can  be  no  difference 
in  the  mode."  And  tins  more  than  Herculean  task  they 
must  enter  upon  and  perfect,  or  else  confess  (to  the  undoing 
of  their  theory),  that  the  Greeks  called  conditions,  without 
physical  envelopment,  baptisms. 

Finally :  Is  it  meant,  that  although  there  is  no  physical 
envelopment,  yet  there  is  an  imaginary  envelopment  ?  The 
theory  luxuriates  in  the  realms  of  imagination.  We  need 
not  care,  so  far  as  any  practical  end  of  this  inquiry  is  con- 
cerned, to  disturb  its  enjoyment  there.  But  so  far  as  mental 
science,  or  rhetorical  exposition,  or  language  development 
are  concerned,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  enter  a  denial 
and  call  for  proof.  And,  flrst,  I  would  ask :  Of  what  is 
this  fiction  envelopment  to  be  constituted  ?  With  what, 
for  example,  is  Thebe's  husband  to  be  enveloped  in  order 
to  his  baptism  ?  With  vinous  influence  ?  something  that 
would  make  drunk  come?  Then  there  must  be  physical 
embodiment  of  this  influence,  and  the  imagination  has  con- 
structed a  physical  envelopment  as  truly  as  if  the  object 
were  placed  at  earth's  centre,  and  it  were  wrapped  about 
with  all  continents  and  oceans.  Besides,  the  imagination 
not  only  makes  bankrupt  all  her  powers  in  such  vain 
endeavor,  but  plays  the  lunatic  in  assuming  it,  for  we  have 


84  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

this  vinous  influence  already  operating  in  and  through  the 
man,  with  his  full  stomach  as  its  interior  base.  Why,  then, 
this  "fifth  wheel  to  the  wagon?"  A  like  issue  is  reached 
in  attempting  to  eliminate  from  the  baptisms  of  Ishraael  and 
of  Satyrus  the  act  and  the  form  of  development  assigned  to 
them  by  the  Greeks,  and  substituting  for  them  acts  most 
impracticable  and  forms  most  irrational.  But,  secondly',  I 
would  ask :  If  the  imagination  could  construct  a  nonentity 
dipping  or  a  nonentity  envelopment,  how  could  diverse  re- 
sults spring  out  of  envelopment,  one  and  simple  ?  Whence 
the  diverse  baptisms:  1.  Of  Thebe — drunkenness;  2.  Of 
Ishmael — insensibility  and  sleep;  3.  Of  Satyrus — drugged 
stupor?  Is  a  remedy  sought  for  this  by  impregnating  these 
several  nonentity  envelopments  with  various  energizing 
powers  qualifying  them  for  the  needed  end?  Then,  all  hail! 
to  the  theory  which  abandons  dipping-envelopment  as  a  reed 
on  which  she  has  leaned  but  to  pierce  her  hand,  and,  at 
length,  accepts  of  controlling  influences  as  executors  of  bap- 
tism and  marking  their  diversity  by  enstampiug  upon  them 
their  several  characteristics. 

It  is  most  obvious,  that  in  these  baptisms,  and  in  all  kin- 
dred baptisms,  there  is  a  declaration  of  controlling  power 
exerted  by  a  given  influence  over  its  object.  This  is  made 
in  the  most  direct  and  simple  manner  in  the  case  of  Thebe's 
baptism — otwco  8k  tzoUw  ' Ah^a'^Spw  ^ar.riaaaa;  here,  it  is  uot 
wine  as  a  fluid  dipped  into,  made  to  envelop  in  any  way, 
sprinkled  upon  or  poured  out,  which  effects  the  baptism, 
but  as  a  fluid  which  may  be  drunk,  and  which  when  drunk 
(and  not  in  any  other  way)  develops  a  peculiar  power  con- 
trolling the  physical  system  and  the  mental  operations.  As 
long  as  words  shall  have  meaning,  and  common  sense  shall 
reign  in  their  interpretation,  these  Greek  words  will  declare 
wine  to  be  the  baptizing  power,  and  the  resultant  condition 
the  baptism,  whose  distinctive  character  is  determined  by 
that  of  wine,  the  baptizing  power. 

The  phraseology  expressive  of  Ishmael's  baptism  (as 
limited  to  the  baptizing  power)  is  not  so  self-asserting  as 
to  the  distinctive  character  of  the  baptism  as  is  that  of 


DIVERSITY   OF  BAPTISMS.  85 

Thebe.  It  is  evident  that  the  phrase  ^efianTKTfiivov  vnd  ixiO-qq 
will  never  be  of  so  common  occurrence  as  the  phrase 
^e^a-KTiaixivov  oivuj.  The  possible  conditions  within  the  com- 
petency of  drunkenness  to  effect  are  also  various.  Unless 
frequent  usage,  therefore,  should  identify  it  with  some  one 
condition  in  particular,  there  must  be  more  or  less  ambiguity 
in  the  phrase  "baptized  by  drunkenness."  Where  the 
greatest  perspicuity  is  desired  all  ambiguity  is  removed  in 
the  most  absolute  measure  by  the  addition  of  a  verbal  ele- 
ment.    This  is  done  by  Josephus,  in  the  present  case,  by 

saying,    ^eijaTznaixivov  uno  niOr]';  elq  dyaiGdyjffiav  xa:  u~vov.        It     IS 

impossible  for  language  to  express  a  definite  baptism  more 
definitely  than  is  done  by  these  words.  The  form  of  the 
phraseology  carries  us  back  to  the  primary  use  of  jSanrt^^oj, 
where  we  see  an  object  passing  into  some  permeable  ele- 
ment (never  more  to  emerge  so  far  as  this  Greek  word  is 
concerned),  and  therefore  brought  completely  under  the  in- 
fluence of  such  element.  It  is  impossible  for  Thebe's  hus- 
band to  enter,  actually,  "mto  insensibility  and  sleep,"  and 
it  would  be  labor  lost  if  we  could,  imaginatively,  give  him 
such  a  local  habitation,  for  withinness  without  influence 
would  be  nothing  and  worse  than  nothing,  while  to  hunt 
up  controlling  influence  through  such  left-handed  method 
would,  if  found,  be  only  to  find  what  was  already  legiti- 
mately in  possession  by  the  allusion,  stamped  in  the  phra- 
seology, to  the  primary  use. 

While,  therefore,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  may  be 
sufiiciently  clear  what  was  the  character  of  the  baptism  by  a 
statement  limited  to  the  baptizing  power,  the  addition  of  the 
element  into  which  the  baptism,  by  verbal  figure,  takes 
place,  gives  a  precision  to  the  statement  beyond  which  lan- 
guage cannot  go.     After  Josephus  had  once  made  the  full 

statement  ^eiSaiznaixivov  VTzb  idOr^q  eii;  dyaKTOrjffcav  xai  umov,  there 

was  no  farther  necessity  for  its  repetition  when  the  context 
clearly  showed  that  he  referred  to  this  baptism.  It  would 
be  abundantly  sufficient  for  him  to  say,  (ie^aTzncTijAvov  ur.b  jxidrj^, 
or  simply  §£(iar.Ttaixivov.  The  ellipsis  would,  readily,  and  must 
necessarily,  be  supplied. 


86  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

In  the  baptism  of  Satyrus  the  statement  is,  tw  d.uTu)  ipapimxta 
xara^ar^riGaq.  The  context  making  explicit  declaration  of  the 
peculiar  power  of  the  drug,  namely,  slec-p  producing,  the 
phrase  (limited  to  the  baptizing  power) — "  baptizing  by  the 
same  drug" — has  an  explicitness,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  bap- 
tism effected,  which  does  not  admit  of  increase  b}'  the  ad- 
dition of  any  other  words. 

The  baptism  of  Thebe,  then,  expresses  not  a  distinction  in 
any  accidents  which  may  have  been  associated  with  the  bap- 
tism, but  a  distinction  in  the  baptism  itself.  It  was  a  drunken 
baptism.  The  same  is  true  of  the  baptism  of  Ishmael.  It 
was  a  stupidly  insensible  baptism.  And  so  of  the  baptism  of 
Satyrus.  It  was  a  drugged  stupor  baptism.  It  is  irrational 
and  impracticable  to  convert  these  distinctions  into  accidents. 

In  like  manner,  among  scores  of  kindred  baptisms,  we 
have'the  baptism  of  Otho,  which  was  a  baptism  by  debt;  and 
the  baptism  of  the  Sophists,  which  was  a  baptism  by  ques- 
tions; and  the  baptism  of  Demosthenes,  which  was  a  baptism 
by  contentious  luords.  So,  also,  we  have  baptism  by  grief,  by 
taxes,  by  diseases,  &c.,  &c.,  without  number.  Now,  can  any 
one,  not  born  in  lunacy  and  grown  gray  amid  its  phantasies, 
affirm,  that  all  these  baptisms  are  one  and  the  same  in  nature? 
Is  not  the  adjunct  term  introduced  for  the  very  purpose  of 
precluding  any  such  error,  and  for  making  affirmation  of 
diversity?  Unity  of  genus  there  is;  diversity  of  species 
there  must  be.  And  this  same  affirmation  is  made  again 
and  again,  most  expressly,  by  the  Patristic  writers.  If  I  ask 
for  a  definition  of  a  watch  spring,  of  a  coach  spring,  of  a  loater 
spring,  shall  I  be  told  that  there  is  no  difference,  that  a  spring 
is  a  spring?  There  is,  indeed,  a  generic  common  thought 
running  through  these  phrases,  but  the  adjunct  terms,  luatch 
spring,  coach  spring,  water  spring,  do  make  and  are  designed 
to  make  an  essential  difference  in  the  idea  of  "  spring"  itself. 
Are  the  differences  expressed  by  woman's  dress,  man's  dress, 
court  dress,  to  be  nullified  and  swept  out  of  sight  by  the  ut- 
terance of  the  wise  saw — "  what  is  dress  in  one  case  must  be 
dress  in  another,  there  can  be  no  difference  in  dress?"  If 
one  longs  for  a  Pentecost  baptism,  shall  he  be  furnished  with 


DIVERSITY   OF   BAPTISMS.  87 

a  huge  beaker  of  wine  and  be  told — "  Here  it  is,  drink  and 
be  drunken,  for  Plato  and  Plutarch  declare  that  drunken- 
ness is  baptism,  and  what  is  baptism  in  one  case  must  be 
baptism  in  another?" 

"We  return,  then,  to  the  baptism  of  Moses,  and  the  baptism 
of  John,  and  the  baptism  of  Christ,  with  the  fullest  evidence 
that  these  adjunct  terms,  Moses,  John,  Christ,  do,  by  their 
natural  force,  qualify  and  give  a  determinate,  distinguishing 
character  to  the  baptisms  with  which  they  are  respectively 
associated.  In  what  these  distinguishing  characteristics  con- 
sist these  phrases  give  no  information.  They  reveal  the  fact 
of  a  diversity ;  the  nature  of  the  diversity  must  be  sought 
elsewhere.  Any  one  who  will  make  investigation  to  this 
end  will  not  labor  in  a  barren  field.  The  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture is  as  explicit  as  language  will  allow.  If  it  were  said, 
that  the  philosophies  of  Greece  gave  their  disciples  a  bap- 
tism into  Platonism,  a  baptism  into  Stoicism,  and  a  baptism 
into  Epicureanism,  would  anj'  one  in  the  wide  world  imagine, 
that  he  was  giving  proof  of  singular  perspicacity  in  proclaim- 
ing these  baptisms  to  be  "  one  and  the  same  baptism,  for 
baptism  in  one  case  must  be  baptism  in  another  case ;  there 
can  be  no  difference  in  the  mode  ? "  Could  any  one  possibly 
understand  otherwise  than  that  these  baptisms  were  diverse 
baptisms ;  that  the  disciples  of  the  Academy  were  baptized 
into,  brought  under  the  full  influence  of,  the  loftiest  and  the 
purest  teachings  of  uninspired  wisdom ;  that  the  disciples 
of  the  Porch  were  baptized  into,  brought  under  the  full  in- 
fluence of,  a  cold  fatalism ;  that  those  who  gathered  around 
the  feet  of  Epicurus  were  baptized  into,  brought  under  the 
full  influence  of,  a  centralized  selfishness  ?  And  is  this  unity 
without  the  most  essential  diversity  ? 

In  like  manner  the  baptism  of  Moses  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
a  baptism  into  ceremonial  purification,  while  the  baptism  of 
John  is,  as  we  shall  see,  a  baptism  into  repentance  for  sin, 
and  the  baptism  of  Christ  is  a  more  glorious  baptism  into 
all  the  fruits  of  the  incarnation — legal  obedience,  penal  suf- 
fering, atoning  death,  triumphant  resurrection,  glorious  as- 
cension, gracious  mediation,  intercession,  and  High  priest- 


05  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

hood  of  the  Lamb  of  God.     Do  these  baptisms  sound  like 
one  and  the  same  baptism  ? 

In  reference  to  that  other  and  infinitely  diverse  question 
agitated  in  these  latter  days,  namelj',  "  What  was  the  man- 
ner in  which  John  used  water  in  his  ritual  baptism?"  I  have 
only  to  sa}',  Our  inquiry  will  lead  us  to  examine  every  case 
in  which  (ianri'iu)  and  its  related  words  occur,  and  if  they 
should  throw  any  light  upon  this  very  profound  question 
whose  terms  are  suggestive  of  such  momentous  issues  (in- 
deed, almost  mounting  up  to  the  high  level  of  the  schism- 
causing  question — "Does  Christianity  require  that  our  coat 
should  be  fastened  with  buttons  or  by  hooks  and  eyes?  "),  we 
shall  have  the  fullest  opportunity  to  benefit  by  such  light; 
but  if  we  should  find  that  they  throw  no  light  upon  this 
question  (which  some  think  so  pregnant  with  high  and  holy 
issues  as  to  challenge  their  hallowed  zeal  in  gulfing  the 
church  of  God  deep  as  the  cities  of  the  plain,  and  islanding 
the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  amid  impassable  waters),  we 
must  be  content  to  remain  in  ignorance  whether  it  be  due 
to  its  profundity,  or  to  its  atomistic  character  that  the  light 
of  revelation  has  not  been  suflered  to  fall  upon  it.  Only, 
I  would  beg  leave  to  indulge  the  hope,  that  any  who  may 
take  the  trouble  to  follow  this  inquiry  will  believe  that  some 
other  end  has  been  had  in  view  than  a  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion— "How  did  John  use  water  in  ritual  baptism?"  If 
after  having  preached  the  gospel  for  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  century,  I  have  not  felt  called  upon  to  preach  but  once, 
formally,  in  answer  to  such  question,  it  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed, that  I  am  now  so  oppressed  by  its  immensity  as  to 
enter  upon  the  task  of  writing  three  or  four  volumes  to  re- 
solve its  mysteries.  I  hope  that  something  higher  than  this 
may  be  accomplished;  but,  if  among  other  results,  they  who 
in  answering  this  question  feel  constrained  (by  a  faithfulness 
to  duty  outvying  the  Roman  father  giving  his  children  over 
unto  death)  to  drive  brother  and  sister  from  their  Father's 
house  and  their  elder  Brother's  table  with  a  scourge  whose 
cords  are  made  up  of  charges  of  "  dishonesty  and  not  lack 


WHAT   IS   THE  FIRST  ERROR?  89 

of  knowledge,"  may  be  relieved  from  this  soul  pressure  by 
finding  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  committed  this  painful 
task  to  them  as  custodians  of  the  great  truth  of  revelation 
embodied  in  the  manner  in  which  water  was  used  in  ritual 
baptism,  I  shall  be  very  happy. 

Dr.  Ilalley,  in  his  work  on  "  The  Sacraments,"  says,  in 
reference  to  Baptism,  "  Let  us  agree  to  find  out  the  truth, 
adhering  closely  to  Scripture,  seeking  all  aid  in  its  correct 
interpretation,  assuming  nothing  without  proof,  and  carefully 
endeavoring  to  detect  the  cause  of  the  error,  on  which  ever 
side  it  be,  the  npcoTov  ^eD^o-,  which,  lurking  in  the  breast  of 
the  one  party  or  the  other,  in  this,  as  in  almost  every  con- 
troversy, vitiates  all  the  subsequent  reasoning,  and,  ever 
present  in  the  dispute,  colors,  with  a  false  light,  the  argu- 
ments adduced  on  each  side  of  the  question ;  concealing 
the  weakness  of  some,  and  imputing  a  fictitious  value  to 
others.  Let  us  reach,  if  it  be  possible,  the  arx  causce  of  this 
dispute,  and  then  it  surely  cannot  be  difficult  for  an  unprej- 
udiced mind  to  ascertain  the  truth."  The  justness  and  the 
efficiency  of  such  a  method  of  investigation  must  be  obvious 
to  all.  It  has  been  my  endeavor,  thus  far,  to  assume  noth- 
ing, to  prove  every  position,  and  to  adhere,  sternly,  to  the 
letter  of  the  text.  I  will,  still,  endeavor  to  do  so.  And, 
more  especially,  in  passing  over  the  ground  of  revelation 
will  I  lean,  in  the  most  absolute  dependence,  on  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  revelation  I  know  nothing  save 
as  taught  by  God.  N^or  do  I  claim  to  be  an  expounder  of 
"  things  difficult  and  hard  to  be  understood."  I  have  neither 
right  nor  wish  to  assume  the  character  of  a  teacher  of  my 
brethren.  My  pretension  is  this,  no  more — To  have  followed 
the  golden  thread  of  truth,  slowly,  steadily,  simply,  abso- 
lutely, through  intricacy,  winding,  and  bewilderment,  until 
brought  into  a  broad  place.  Of  this  I  make  report.  Those 
who  examine  and  believe  that  they  see  the  golden  filament 
stretching  unbroken,  unwrested,  all  along  the  way,  will  ap- 
prove and  accept;  others  will  condemn  and  reject.  Accepted 
or  rejected,  no  man  is  "  made  a  judge  over  us."  The  only 
wise  God  is  the  adorable  and  awful  arbiter  of  truth. 


90  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

It  should  be  tlie  especial  endeavor  of  all,  in  this  perplexed 
inquiry,  "to  adhere  closely  to  Scripture,  to  seek  all  aid  in  its 
correct  interpretation,  and  to  assume  nothing  loiihout  2J'^oof." 
As  bearing  upon  this  last  particular  it  may  be  noted,  that 
"the  theory"  turns  upon  this  double  pivot:  1.  BaTzzO^u)  ex- 
presses unalterable  modal  action;  2.  BazTzi'^u)  is  so  gram- 
matically connected  with  water  in  the  Scripture  as  to  ex- 
pound and  require  its  modal  use  in  ritual  baptism.  Xow,  I 
would  ask,  Whether  these  two  points  have  ever  been  proved? 
and,  farther,  wdiether  there  has  ever  been  an  attempt  to  prove 
them  ?  If  any  such  attempt  has  ever  been  made,  I  have 
never  heard  of  it.  Dr.  Carson  says,  the  Greek  word  means 
"  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature,  ex- 
pressing mode  and  nothing  but  mode."  But  he  has  not 
taken  the  first  step  toward  proof.  His  own  examples  of 
usage  not  only  show  that  his  assumption  is  erroneous,  but 
that  it  is  an  error  of  the  extremest  character.  ~So  point  in 
philology  has  been  or  can  be  proved  with  more  absolute 
evidence  than  that  ftaixzi'^iu  does  not  express  modal  action. 
This  first  assumption  of  the  theory,  then,  disappears  forever 
from  all  controversy.  "With  the  evanishment  of  the  first 
assumption,  the  second,  also,  largely  if  not  wholly,  passes 
away  as  a  shadow.  Whatever  remains  will  receive  due 
consideration  as  occasion  may  demand. 

In  entering  upon  an  examination  of  the  details  of  usage,  I 
would  remind  the  friends  of  the  theory  of  the  words  of 
President  Wayland — "  I  stand  to  whatever  God  has  said ; 
what  men  infer  from  it  is  merely  human  and  weighs  with 
me  just  nothing.  As  a  Christian  I  think  I  can,  in  my  poor 
way,  defend  what  God  has  said;  what  man  has  inferred  from 
it,  man  may  defend  if  he  can  ;  I  am  not  responsible."  All 
others  I  would  remind  of  those  words  of  John  Calvin, 
stamped  on  the  ploughshare  of  the  Reformation,  "It  ought 
not  to  have  any  weight  with  us  that  an  opinion  has  long  and 
extensively  prevailed.  We  must  learn  to  form  our  judgment 
from  the  matter  as  it  stands,  and  not  from  the  mistaken 
opinions  of  men."  These  are  noble  sentiments  of  noble 
men.     Let  it  be  our  nobility  to  carry  them  into  practice. 


JOHN'S   KNOWLEDGE    OF   BAHTIZQ. 


CUKEENT  JEWISH  BAPTISMS. 

John's  knowledge  as  to  the  essential  meaning  and  breadth 
of  usage  of  /Sa/rrt'Cw  must,  obviously,  enter,  as  an  important 
element,  into  any  satisfactory  determination  of  his  own 
usage  of  that  word  in  connection  with  his  baptism.  "What 
sources  of  information,  on  these  points,  were  available  to 
him  ?  The  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
in  which  this  Greek  word  appears,  had  been  made  more 
than  two  centuries  before  John's  ministry  began.  The 
apocryphal  Jewish  Greek  writings  which,  also,  use  this 
word,  were  in  existence  for  nearly  as  long  a  time.  Jewish 
ritual  purifications  to  which  this  word  was  applied,  and  had 
been  applied  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  were  in  full 
and  daily  observance  all  through  the  ministry  of  John. 
Josephus,  writing  in  Greek,  immediately  upon  the  close  of 
John's  ministry,  employs  this,  and  related  words,  in  his- 
torical reference  to  his  ministry  and  baptism. 

These  facts  make  it  obvious,  that  the  word  could  not  enter 
as  a  novelty  into  John's  vocabulary.  They,  also,  teach  us, 
that  if  the  word  had  received  any  coloring,  before  it  reached 
John,  what  was  the  medium  through  which  it  had  passed, 
and  from  which  such  coloring  must  have  been  received. 

As  to  the  extent  of  usage  shown  by  these  writings  in  the 
employment  of  this  word,  I  Tvould  observe,  1.  There  is  no 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  Septuagint  uses  this  word,  in 
any  case,  in  its  simple,  primary,  physical  sense.  The  same 
is  true  with  regard  to  the  apocryphal  writings.  The  only 
instances  in  which  it  is  so  employed  by  Josephus  contem- 
plates the  destruction  of  life.     This  is  its  legitimate  and 

(91) 


92  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

ordinary  classical  use.  Such  use  excludes,  of  necessity,  a 
dipping  from  the  meaning  of  this  word.  A  dipping  kills 
nobody.  As  a  consequence  from  this,  and  what  we  would 
assume  without  any  definite  information,  there  is  no  con- 
clusive evidence  that  the  word  is  used  in  any  of  these 
writings,  in  a  single  instance,  to  express  a  designed  momen- 
tary envelopment  or  the  modal  act  of  dipping.  There  is, 
however,  conclusive  evidence  to  show,  that  the  Septuagint, 
the  Apocrypha,  and  Josephus,  do,  all,  use  this  word  to  ex- 
press condition  resultant  from  controlling  influence.  There 
is,  also,  conclusive  evidence  furnished  by  these  writings  of 
the  perfect  adaptability  of  the  word  to  cxjiress,  by  appropri- 
ation, any  specific  condition  resultant  from  controlling  in- 
fluence, and  the  very  highest  probability  from  these  writings 
(certainty  from  others),  that  it  was,  in  fact,  so  used. 

Having  already  examined  the  usage  of  this  word  as  shown 
by  the  Septuagint  and  the  Apocrypha,  w^e  shall,  now,  pro- 
ceed to  examine  the  use  of  this  word  in  connection  with 
those  Jewish  baptisms  which  antedated  and  were  current 
with  the  whole  course  of  John's  ministry.  The  importance 
of  doing  this  is  twofold  :  1.  As  showing  John's  knowledge; 
2.  As  showing  the  necessity,  if  these  baptisms  diftered,  for 
having  some  evident,  unmistakable  mark  of  discrimination 
separating  contemporaneous  baptisms. 


CEEEMONIAL   PUKIFICATION. 
'  BAPTISM   FROM   THE   MARKET. 

Mark  7  : 4. 

"And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with 
defiled,  that  is  to  say  with  unwashen,  hands,  they  found  fault. 
For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,  cat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders. 

"And  except  they  baptize  themselves  from  the  market,  they 
eat  not." 

"  Ka\  ano  ayopaq  lav  fxij  ^aTzriawvrat^  dux  iaOiouffi." 


BAPTISM   FROM   THE   MARKET.  93- 

The  Text. 

The  Codex  Siuaiticus  has  pavTiawvrat  instead  of  [iaTrriffcuvrat. 
Whether  this  be  accepted  as  the  better  reading  or  not,  it 
shows  that  the  copyist  saw  no  difficulty  in  a  baptism  being 
effected  by  sprinkling.  For  in  whatsoever  way  the  "water 
may  have  been  used,  on  this  occasion,  it  was  used  to  effect  a 
baptism.  So,  in  the  hand  washing,  which  Campbell  and 
others  say  was  by  "pouring  a  little  water  on  them,"  the 
purpose  was  to  effect  a  baptism.  This  is  evident  from  the 
general  custom  of  the  Jews  and  the  language  used  to  ex- 
pound it,  as,  also,  from  the  spirit  and  phraseology  of  this 
particular  passage.  The  word  required  to  be  supplied  in 
connection  with  aUa-TzoUd  iff-iv  a  is  ^a-Tiffimra.  And  it  is  ob- 
vious that  ^a-KTiff/j.oh'^  so  reflects  back  upon  the  purification 
of  the  hands,  and  the  purification  from  the  market,  as  to 
bring  them  into  the  same  class  of  baptisms.  This  seems  to 
be  Campbell's  view,  who,  in  explaining  why  he  translates 
l3a-Tcafj.ob<;  baptisms,  and  ^aTcriffwvrat  dip  (their  hands)  says :  1. 
"  That  the  appellation  baptisms,  here  given  to  such  washings, 
fully  answers  the  purpose;"  and  2.  "  That  the  way  I  have 
rendered  that  word  (dip)  shows  better  the  contrast  between 
it  and  vi4>u)vrai  so  manifestly  intended  by  the  evangelist." 
He  seems  to  think  that  although  he  has  represented  the 
hands  as  purified  by  pouring  water  upon  them  in  one  case 
and  by  dipping  them  into  water  in  another  case,  they  are 
sufficiently  designated  as  baptisms,  by  using  that  term  to 
denote  the  purification  of  pots,  cups,  and  couches,  since  that 
designation  embraced  them  all.  However  this  may  be,  it  is 
in  proof  that  baptisms  were,  indifferently,  eftected  by  sprink- 
ling, by  pouring,  and  by  washing  more  or  less  of  the  person. 

The  text  of  the  Codex  Siuaiticus  teaches  that  the  baptism 
was  by  sprinkling ;  the  received  text  teaches  that  the  puri- 
fication was  complete,  saying  nothing  of  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  effected. 

Translation. 
The  common  version  introduces  the  clause — Wlien  they 


'94  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

come  "from  the  market."  Codex  D.  has  the  additiou  lav 
iXOojffcv,  which  Mej-er,  De  "Wette,  and  others  regard  as  a  good 
interpretation.  Bloomfield  would  supply  cxtfovr-?,  or  ysvoiievoc, 
or  oVtc?.  Sirach  31 :  30  jSaTrrd^d/ievuq  a-o  '^zxfwu^  "  i.  e.,  after  re- 
turning a  mortiLO  curando,"  is  cited  in  support  of  this  view. 
Krebs  objects  to  this  interpretation  as  needing  confirmation. 
He,  together  with  Kuinoel,  Olshausen,  Lange,  and  others, 
w^ould  make  the  reference  to  provisions  brought  from  the 
market  and  washed  before  eaten.  Winer  does  not  regard 
this  as  satisfactory,  because  to  do  this  would  be  required  by 
the  fitness  of  things  and  not  by  a  mere  precept  of  Pharisee- 
ism.  It  is  evident  that  no  interpretation  has  been  suggested 
which  commends  itself  to  universal  acceptance.  It  may, 
therefore,  be  allowable  to  suggest  an  interpretation  which 
lies  close  at  hand  and  is  grounded  in  the  very  phraseology 
— "except  they  baptize — thoroughly  purify  themselves /ro?;i 
the  markeC^  This  intimate  relation  of  the  Greek  verb  and 
the  preposition  anb  does  not,  now,  meet  us  for  the  first  time. 
We  have  had  lSa7zn!^6fi£yoz  &7td  vaxpou,  baptized  from  the  dead 
(Sir.  31 :  30),  and  ^ar.ri%oij.tvoz  aizb  r?;?  xoj'rjy?,  baptized  from,  the  bed 
(Clem.  Alex.,  I,  1184),  and  /?a;r-:V(99jre  arzb  opyr^q,  baptize  from 
aiiger,  Justin  M.  In  all  of  these  cases  the  same  principle 
of  interpretation  must  rule.  Few  would  translate — "  they 
baptize  themselves  returning  from  the  dead,  or  the  things 
brought  from  the  dead;"  nor,  "they  baptize  themselves 
returning  from  the  bed,  or  the  things  brought  from  the  bed." 
It  is  evident  that  pollution  has  been  received  "  from  the 
bed,"  "from  the  dead,"  and  "from  the  market,"  and  that 
the  object  of  the  baptism  is  to  remove  this  pollution  from 
themselves,  and  thus  themselves  "from  the  market,"  "from 
the  bed,"  and  "  from  the  dead,"  causative  of  the  pollution. 
The  correctness  of  this  interpretation  receives  support  from 
the  parallel  phrase  tp^avTia/iivot  aitb  auvetdrjaswq  -KovTipaz  (Ileb. 
10  :  22),  in  which  the  other  modes  of  interpretation  have 
no  fitness,  but  which  is  readily  expounded  in  the  way  sug- 
gested. This  latter  phrase  reminds  us  of  the  text  of  the  Codex 
Sin.,  arro  ayopa^  f)avTiawvTai\  the  foriu  by  wliicli  the  purification 
was  efiected  representing  the  purification  itself.     And  this 


BAPTISM   FROM   THE   MARKET.  95 

phraseology  was  of  sucli  frequent  recurrence  amid  Jewish 
purifications,  that  it  seems  to  have  lost  its  elliptic  character 
and  became  directly  interpretative,  Winer  (p.  622,  Thayer's 
Ed.)  says,  iieravotiv  d-nd  rr^q  xaxiaq  (Acts  8  :  22)  Originates  in  like 
manner  with  Mark  7 :  4  in  a  constructio  pregnans,  though 
by  us  it  is  scarcely  felt.  This  acceptance  by  the  mind  of 
such  phrases  as  conveying  thought  directly  often  requires 
that  the  verb  which  is  retained  shall  accept  the  meaning  of 
the  verb  which  is  suppressed.  Thus  Professor  Stuart  (lieb. 
10  :  22)  says,  the  construction  ippavTt<Tp.ivot  d-d  shows  that  the 
participle  is  to  be  taken  in  a  secondary  or  metaphorical 
sense,  i.  e.,  jMrificd  from,  cleansed  from.  So  Ebrard,  '"i^Tro 
depends  on  the  idea  of  '  cleansing'  which  is  implied  in  the 
(pregnant)  fjavri^eiv,"  which  he  translates  cleansed.  And 
Ernesti  translates,  "  Animis  a  conscientia  peccute  puris 
purgatis."  In  like  manner,  ^^  baptized  from  the  market"  in- 
dicates, by  the  construction,  by  that  construction  persisted 
in  through  one  or  more  centuries,  by  its  necessary  daily  re- 
currence, that  l3a7iTi^uj  has  attained  a  secondary  meaning,  and 
that  the  phrase  must  mean,  '■'■  ihorougldy  purified  from  the 
market."  So,  Professor  Godwin  appeals  to  this  construction 
as  evidence  that  the  verb  has  secured  a  new  meaning. 
The  meaning  to  p)urify  ceremonially  has  been,  already,  shown 
to  belong  to  ^aTzri^^u)  as  used  in  Jewish  rites,  bj'  a  score  of 
facts  in  which  any  other  meaning  was  out  of  the  question. 
This  position  is,  now,  fortified  still  farther  by  a  grammatical 
form  whose  legitimate  interpretation  under  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage demand  that  that  same  meaning  be  assigned  to  the 
word. 

Between  the  washing  of  the  hands  with  "  a  quarter  of  a 
logus,  an  Qgg  full  and  a  half,  about  twenty-seven  drachms," 
and  the  baptism  from  the  market,  there  is  made  a  distinction. 
It  probably  consisted  in  a  less  thorough  and  a  more  thorough 
purification.  But  the  quo  modo  in  neither  case  is  stated. 
The  word  ^aizTiZm  always  denotes  completeness  of  condition, 
however  the  influence  may  be  brought  to  bear  for  its 
accomplishment. 


96  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Inierpreta  Hon . — Carson. 

Dr.  Carson  says  of  this  passage,  "  It  ought  to  have  been 
translated — '  Except  they  dip  themselves,  they  eat  not.'  But 
as  respects  my  argument  I  care  not  whether  par.riawvrai  here 
refers  to  the  hands  or  the  whole  body ;  it  is  perfectly  suf- 
ficient for  me  if  it  here  admits  the  usual  meaning. 

"I  bring  passages  without  number  to  prove  that  the  word 
must  have  the  meaning  for  which  I  contend.  No  passage 
could  be  a  valid  objection  against  my  conclusion,  except  one 
in  which  it  cannot  have  that  signification. 

"  If  another  signification  is  found,  I  will  not  insist  that 
immersion  must  o^ course  be  the  signification  here.  In  such 
a  case  as  tliis  the  meaning  must  be  settled  by  additional 
evidence.  When  a  word  has  two  or  more  meanings  actually 
in  proof,  which  of  them  may,  in  any  passage,  be  the  true 
meaning  is  a  question ;  but  if  no  secondary  meaning  is  in 
proof,  there  can  be  no  question  on  the  subject.  JSow,  there 
is  not  in  all  Greek  literature  a  single  instance  ever  alleged  in  ichich 
the  word  must  have  a  secondary  meaning. 

"I  admit  that  ^dnru}  has  a  secondary  meaning,  because 
such  secondary  meaning  is  in  proof,  and  instances  may  be 
alleged  in  which  its  primary  meaning  is  utterly  impossible. 
When  applied,  for  instance,  to  the  lake,  the  immersion  of  a 
lake  in  the  blood  of  a  frog,  is  beyond  the  bounds  of  possi- 
bility. Show  me  anything  like  this  with  respect  to  /Ja-n'^w, 
and  I  will  grant  a  secondary  meaning;  and  as  soon  as  a 
secondary  meaning  is  ascertained  on  sufficient  grounds,  I  do 
not  demand,  in  every  instance,  a  proof  of  impossibility  of 
primary  meaning  before  the  secondary  is  alleged. 

"  I  assume  nothing  but  self-evident  truth.  I  never  used  a 
shift  in  all  the  controversy  that  I  ever  wrote.  Does  it  require 
a  shift  to  prove  in  all  the  cases  referred  to  immersion  was 
possible?  The  proof  that  immersion  was  used  in  the  cases 
referred  to  is  that  the  word  has  the  meaning  and  no  other." 

Untenable  Positions. 
1.  "It  ought  to  have  been  translated,  except  they  dip 


BAPTISM    FROM   THE    MARKET.  97 

themselves.  I  bring  passages  without  number  to  prove  that 
the  word  must  have  this  meaning." 

Dr.  Carson  has  not  adduced  one  passage  which  proves  that 
^aizzi'^u)  means  to  dip.  He  has,  in  fact,  made  no  attempt  to 
prove  it.  To  make  an  assertion  and  then  to  quote  passages 
without  showing  their  relevancy  to  the  point  at  issue  is 
neither  proof  nor  worthy  to  be  called  an  attempt  at  proof. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  the  passages  quoted  do,  many  of  them, 
most  expressly  contradict  and  most  absolutely  disprove  the 
point  which  they  are  brought  to  sustain.  They  not  only 
show,  that  the  action  of  dipping  is  not  present  in  the  bap- 
tism, but  that  the  baptism  is  eifected  by  other  action  which 
is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  such  action.  In  other  cases  in 
which  the  action  of  dipping  was  present,  or  might  be  con- 
ceived to  be,  there  is  no  attempt  to  identify  ^anri^u)  with 
such  action.  To  attach  dipping  to  ^oktIZu),  as  its  distinctive 
meaning,  is  to  reach  an  issue  by  the  most  absolute  and  un- 
warrantable assumption,  not  only  unsupported  by  facts,  but 
contradicted  by  them. 

When  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  I  care  not  whether  the  hands  or 
the  whole  body  is  dipped,"  it  might  be  added, — "  and  for 
good  reason,  seeing  that  neither  hand  dipping^  nor  body  dip- 
p)ing  is  baptism."  All  classic  usage  enters  a  protest  against 
confounding  a  dipping  and  a  baptism.  A  dipping  (under 
the  theory  which  insists  on  a  definite  act,  mode  and  nothing 
but  mode)  can  never  be  converted  into  a  baptism.  And 
yet  under  a  true  view  of  this  word  (which  has  nothing  to  do 
with  a  form  of  action,  but  makes  demand  for  condition)  a 
dipping  of  the  hands  may  eft'ect  a  Judaic  baptism  of  the 
entire  body.  In  such  case  the  verb  does  not  expound,  nor 
has  it  the  least  concern  with  the  act  performed,  but  contem- 
plates, exclusively,  the  resultant  condition,  which  is  not  a 
ceremonial  purification  of  the  hands,  merely,  but  of  the 
entire  person.  This  is  on  the  same  principle  that  the  maid- 
servant (C.  B.,  p.  309)  is  said  to  have  been  baptized  by  a 
glass  of  wine.  ISTeither  her  whole  body,  nor  her  hands,  nor 
yet  the  tips  of  her  fingers  were  dipped  into  the  wine;  she 
drank  it,  and,  although  it  touched  but  a  small  part  of  her 

7 


98  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

person,  it  baptized  her  completely,  changed  her  condition. 
The  condition  of  the  Jew  was  ceremonially  changed,  his 
person  entirely  baptized,  bj^  dipping  his  hands  into  pure 
water.  Whether  the  action  was  dipping  or  drinking,  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling,  is  a  matter  of  infinite  indifference  to  the 
baptism.  The  Greek  word  never,  under  any  circumstances, 
defines  the  form  of  act  which  may  be  employed  in  effecting 
a  baptism. 

2.  "  There  is  not  in  all  Greek  literature  a  single  instance  ever 
alleged  in  lohich  the  ivord  must  have  a  secondary  meaning." 

The  italics  and  capitals  are  as  I  find  them.  In  reply  to 
this  position  it  may  be  stated,  that  the  primary  meaning  of 
^aizri'^u)  makes  demand  for  intusposition  within  a  solid,  semi- 
solid, or  a  fluid,  without  limitation  of  act,  time,  or  influence. 
Such  a  condition,  as  is  obvious,  must  result  in  exercising  the 
fullest  measure  of  influence  which  the  enveloping  element 
is  capable  of  exerting  over  the  enveloped  object.  As  a  re- 
sult from  this,  the  word  is  naturally,  I  might  say  unavoid- 
ably, used,  where  no  envelopment  is  or  can  be,  to  express, 
directly,  controlling  influence  genericall}^  as,  also,  by  ap- 
propriation, specific  influences.  Of  this  secondary  usage 
Greek  literature  furnishes  not  merely  "  a  single  instance," 
but  multitudinous  examples.  Some  of  which  it  may  be  well 
to  adduce. 

(1.)  Water  poured  into  wine  is  said  to  baptize  Bacchus. 
The  god  of  wine  is,  here,  introduced  as  exercising  the  power 
of  making  drunk  through  wine-drinking.  While  ho  is  rep- 
resented as  despoiled  of  tliis  power  by  means  of  the  influence 
of  water  poured  into  wine.  Bacchus  is  brought  under  re- 
straint by  the  greater  power  of  water.  The  nature  of  wine 
to  intoxicate  is  brought  under  the  influence  of  water,  and 
being  assimilated  to  that  controlling  influence  is  made  like 
it  unintoxicating.  This  in-pouring  of  water  and  its  resultant 
controlling  influence  "  must"  be  set  down  to  secondary  use. 

(2.)  A  drunken  man  is  said  to  be  a  baptized  man  (C.  B., 
p.  317).  A  man  is  not  made  drunk  by  being  dipped.  No 
Greek  could  ever  so  blunder  as  to  attribute,  by  imagination, 
a  thoroughly  drunken  condition  to  a  dipping!     A  physical 


UNTENABLE   POSITIONS.  99 

(lipping  into  a  full  wine  cask  never  was  and  never  will  be  an 
image  of  drunkenness,  so  long  as  the  imagination  sliall  re- 
main sober.  To  merse  a  man,  to  place  him  for  an  indefinite 
period,  within  a  wine  cask,  in  order  to  exhibit  an  image  of 
drunkenness,  would  indicate  to  all  sober  men  that  the  imagi- 
nation of  such  persons  was  already  under  the  influence  of 
the  tipsy  God.  The  Classic  use  of  this  word  to  express  the 
condition  of  drunkenness  "  must"  result  from  secondary  use. 

(3.)  A  man  who  drinks  at  the  fountain  of  Silenus  becomes 
a  baptized  man  (C.  B.,  p.  307).  Until  there  shall  be  traced 
an  identity  between  the  detinite  action  in  drinking  and  the 
definite  action  in  dipping,  we  must  abandon  this  as  illustra- 
tive of  the  primary  meaning  of  the  theorj^,  and  accept  the 
condition  effected  by  a  controlling  influence  as  a  conclusive 
"must"  be  for  a  secondary  usage. 

(4.)  Cities,  and  all  Asia,  are  represented  as  baptized  by 
sleep,  by  the  running  away  of  bakers,  by  defeat  in  battle, 
&c.  (C.  B.,  p.  284).  Does  sleep,  no  baking,  or  defeat,  dip  its 
victims  into  anything  ?  Is  not  the  imagined  dipping  of  a 
city,  or  a  continent,  or  even  of  an  Asia  31inor,  a  freak  of 
imagination  whose  originality  belongs,  by  exclusive  right, 
to  the  theory  ?  So  long  as  sleep,  an  empty  oven,  and  a  lost 
battle  shall  exercise  controlling  influence  over  their  objects, 
in  disregard  of  definite  act,  we  "must"  adhere  to  a  second- 
ary use. 

(5.)  A  person  bewildered  with  questions  is  said  to  be  bap- 
tized (C.  B.,  p.  334).  Until  this  baptism  can  be  accomplished 
by  dipping  into  a  pool,  or  river,  or  bag  full  of  perplexing 
questions,  we  must  be  content  to  accept  the  baptism  of 
sophistically  propounded  questions  as  a  proof  that  there 
"must"  be  a  secondary  usage. 

Without  extending  this  list  of  Classic  baptisms  in  which 
there  cannot  be  a  dipping  and  must  be  a  secondary  use,  I 
add  a  few  of  like  character  from  Judaic  Baptism.  (1.)  Bap- 
tism by  ashes  sprinkled  (p.  100).  Dipping  is  excluded  and 
controlling  influence  is  a  necessity.  (2.)  Baptism  by  the 
troubled  waters  of  Bethesda  (p.  164),  As  the  baptizing 
power  of  these  waters  did  not  depend  on  their  allowing  an 


100  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

object  to  be  dipped  into  them,  but  upon  their  power  of  influ- 
ence to  heal  the  diseased,  a  dipping  is  excluded  and  a 
secondary  use  is  established.  (3.)  Baptism  by  a  coal  of  fire 
(p.  239).  Isaiah  could  not  be  dipped  into  a  coal  of  fire,  nor 
could  a  coal  of  fire  dip  him  into  anything  else.  Definite 
action  is  excluded  from  the  word  and  controlling  influence 
marks  the  secondar}'  use.  (4.)  Baptism  of  sins  by  a  flaming 
sword  (p.  236).  A  flaming  sword  cannot  dip,  nor  can  sins 
be  dipped.  He  w^ho  baptizes  by  the  flaming  sword  (the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ)  does  exercise  a  controlling  influence 
whereby  sins  are  cleansed.  And,  again,  dipping  is  excluded 
and  influence  is  established.  (5.)  Baptism  by  pouring  w^ater 
on  the  altar  (p.  328).  If  the  action  of  pouring  is  not  the 
action  of  dipping,  then  this  baptism  was  not  by  dipping; 
and  if  there  be  a  purifying  influence  proceeding  from  the 
ritual  use  of  water  extending  over  the  altar  and  its  sacrifice, 
preparing  it  for  the  burning  attestation  of  Jehovah  to  his 
deity,  then  there  must  be  a  secondary  meaning  entering  into 
the  use  of  this  word. 

The  number  of  these  baptisms  might  be  greatly  extended. 
But  as  one,  only,  was  asked  for,  ten  may  suffice.  There  is 
dipping  in  none.  There  is  controlling  infiuence  in  all.  The 
primary  meaning  of  the  theory  has  no  standing-place.  The 
secondary  meaning  is  a  necessity — an  absolute  "must." 

3.  "  BdKTU)  has  a  secondary  meaning.  The  immersion  of 
a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  frog  is  impossible.  Show  me  any- 
thing like  this  with  respect  to  /3a-T£tw,  and  I  will  grant  a 
secondary  meaning."  Dr.  Carson  can  see  no  evidence  in 
favor  of  his  opponent's  position  and  no  evidence  against  his 
own.  The  difliculty  of  dipping  a  lake  into  a  few  drops  of 
blood  is  all  owino;  to  a  sudden  dearth  of  imagination.  The 
theory  has  performed  this  very  same  feat  manj^  a  time.  All 
that  is  needful  is,  to  treat  the  syntax  as  of  no  authority  and 
substitute  a  local  for  an  instrumental  dative,  next  call  on 
catachresis  to  plead  guilty  to  the  use  of  the  act  of  dropping 
instead  of  the  act  of  dipping,  and  then  summon  hyperbole 
to  expand  the  blood-drops  so  as  to  receive  the  avahmche 
of  waters,  and  all  will  be  done.     Literality  will  disappear, 


UNTENABLE   POSITIONS.  101 

secondary  meaning  will  vanish,  while  the  beauty  of  figure 
and  the  power  of  imagination  w^ill  be  in  the  ascendant.  And 
to  all  this  the  theory  attaches  her  seal  with  the  legend — 
"  Can  any  child  fail  to  understand  this?" 

It  is  by  rhetorical  appliances  like  these  that  ^ar.xi^ui  has 
been  cheated  out  of  a  secondary  meaning.  And  under  the 
same  heroic  treatment  no  word  in  any  language  could  ever 
attain  to  a  secondary  meaning. 

But  Dr.  Carson  thinks  that  no  use  of  ^a-nzC^oi  can  parallel 
this  case  which  proves  so  indisputably  a  secondary  meaning 
for  ^aizTu).  How  much  easier  is  it  to  dip  Lake  Myrrha  into 
a  piece  of  wood  thrown  into  it,  than  it  is  to  dip  this  Homeric 
lake  into  a  frog's  blood?  How  much  easier  is  the  feat  of 
dipping  a  city  into  runaway  bakers  ?  Or,  to  dip  an  altar 
into  poured  on  water?  Or,  to  dip  Asia  into  anything  you 
please  ?  But  such  trifles  as  altars,  cities,  lakes,  and  young 
continents  can  be  dipped  in  a  trice  when  a  secondary  mean- 
ing is  to  be  denied,  at  all  cost,  to  fiaTzzi^u);  while  a  denial  of  a 
secondary  meaning  to  i^dnrcu,  under  similar  circumstances,  is 
hooted  at. 

Yet,  as  surely  as  /?a7rra>  loses  its  modal  act  under  the  color- 
ing influence  of  blood  dropped  into  the  lake,  so  surely  does 
^anriZu)  lose  its  intusposition  under  the  purifying  influence 
of  water  poured  upon  the  altar. 

4.  "  I  never  used  a  shift  in  controversy.  The  word  has 
this  meaning  (dip)  and  no  other."  I  believe,  most  absolutely, 
in  Dr.  Carson's  honesty  of  intention.  And,  yet,  I  believe, 
that  there  never  was  a  book  written  which  does  more  com- 
pletely turn,  in  its  argumentation,  on  a  shifting  of  words, 
than  does  this  book — "  Carson  on  Baptism." 

He  sets  out  with  the  unqualified  position — "  the  word 
means  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature" 
— and  when  the  word  is  used  to  express  the  condition  of  the 
coast  under  the  flux  and  reflux  of  the  tides,  this  condition  is 
converted  into  modal  action  by  shifting  from  fact  to  figure, 
and  from  prose  to  poetry,  and  rhetoricizing  "  covered  and 
bare"  (not  included  in  the  use  of  the  word  at  all)  into  the 
in  and  out  of  a  dipping.     And  when  the  altar  is  baptized  by 


102  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

pouring  water  upon  it,  the  modal  act  of  pouring  is  converted 
into  the  modal  act  of  dipping,  in  the  same  shiftily  style,  as 
was  the  modal  act  of  flowing.  When  vessels  lie  baptized  at 
the  bottom  of  the  sea,  the  most  dazzling  proof  of  the  in  and 
out  of  dip  is  furnished  by  shifting  to  immerse,  in  which  word 
such  action  never  had  and  never  will  have  place.  Thus 
"without  a  shift "(!)  the  univocalism  of /Jarrj^w  is  established. 
This  error  of  univocalism,  both  of  fact  and  of  kind,  is  the 
exclusive  dependence  of  Dr.  Carson  in  his  interpretation  of 
the  passage  before  us. 

HAND-WASHING  BAPTISM. 

Ambrose. — Hand-washing. 

Ambrose  presents  this  comment :  "  Ut  manus  non  lavarent, 
cum  panem  manducarent;  quoniam.  Qui  lotus  est  ioius,  non 
habet  necesse  ui  manus  lavet  (John  13  :  10).  Laverat  eos  Jesus, 
lavacrum  aliud  non  quaerebant;  uno  enim  Christus  baptis- 
mate  omnia  solvit  baptismata" — The  Jews  in  following  the 
tradition  of  men,  neglect  that  of  God;  the  disciples  in  giving 
precedence  to  that  of  God,  neglected  that  of  men,  so  that 
they  would  not  wash  their  hands  when  they  ate  broad : 
Since  "  he  who  is  completely  washed  has  no  need  that  he 
should  wash  his  hands."  "Jesus  had  washed  them,  they 
sought  no  other  baptism;  for  Christ  by  one  baptism  resolves 
all  baptisms"  (11,1789). 

This  passage  recognizes,  most  explicitlj^,  hand-washing  as 
a  baptism.  The  argument  is,  The  disciples  having  received 
the  one  perfect  baptism  of  Christ  did  not  need  that  lower 
purification  effected  by  hand-washing  baptism.  And  they 
needed,  just  as  little,  any  other  among  the  "omnia  bap- 
tismata." 

Justin  Martyr  addresses  the  same  argument  to  the  Jews: 
"  This  baptism  is  the  only  one  able  to  cleanse  ...  of  what 
use  is  that  baptism  which  cleanses  the  flesh  and  the  body 
only  ?  Baptize  the  soul  and  the  body  is  pure"  (504).  Am- 
brose uses  almost  the  same  words:  "Ergo  mysterio  intende- 
bant  discipuli,  non  sui  munditiam  corporis,  sed  animoe  re- 


CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDKIA.      *  103 

quirentes.  Hoc  reprehendebant  Juclsei;  sed  argute  redar- 
guntur  a  Domino,  quod  iuania  observent,  profutura  despici- 
aut.  The  disciples  understood  the  mystery  to  require,  not 
the  cleansing  of  the  body,  but  of  the  soul.  The  Jews  ob- 
jected to  this;  but  the  Lord  wisely  rebuked  them,  because 
they  observe  profitless  (baptisms)  and  reject  the  profitable." 
The  only  rational  interpretation  of  these  baptisms  is  that 
which  refers  them  to  diverse  conditions  of  purification — of 
the  body,  ceremonially,  and  of  the  soul,  spiritually. 

element  of  Alexandria. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (I,  1352)  speaks  of  hand-washing 
as  a  baptism,  ei'xwv  too  lifmriaixaroz.  He  refers  to  hand-w^ashing 
by  Telemachus — "  Tr^Uimyoc,  ds,  yjipaq  vt4<aiJ.vMi<;'' — and  adds, — 

"  ^EOoq  TouTO  'loodaiiov,  ux;  xai  to  tzu/JA/.I':  l-\  xuirrj  jja-ri^sfjOm — ThlS 

(hand-washing  baptism)  was  a  custom  of  the  Jews,  so  as 
even  to  be  baptized  frequently  upon  the  couch."  "When  we 
consider  the  severe  absolutism  assumed  by  the  friends  of 
dipping,  it  is  truly  wonderful  how  continually  the  tacts  and 
phraseology  of  usage  seize  hold  of  "  the  theory"  and  shake 
it  to  pieces.  And  when  they  make  shift  to  rebuild,  it  is  only 
agcix  aciiwi,  to  reconstruct  out  of  a  renewed  ruin  a  yet  frailer 
tenement. 

At  the  baptism  of  Judith  eftbrt  was  made  to  change  "at" 
(^TTi)  the  fountain  into  "in"  the  fountain;  here,  efifort  is  made 
to  change  the  baptism  "on"  (em)  the  couch  into  baptism 
^^  after  the  bed.''  ITeither  the  preposition  nor  the  place  suits 
the  theory.  A  guest  reclining  on  a  dining  couch  is  as  poor 
a  subject  for  dipping,  as  the  altar  crowning  Carmel.  It  is 
true  that  water  can  be  poured  over  the  altar,  and  was  poured 
in  fact,  which  pouring  Origen  says  baptized  the  altar;  and  it 
is  also  true,  that  water  can  be  poured  over  the  hands  of  a 
guest  on  his  couch,  and  was  in  fact  so  poured,  which  pour- 
ing Ambrose  and  Clement  declare  baptized  the  guest;  but 
if  all  this  be  admitted,  what  becomes  of  the  theory  ?  Poetry 
and  rhetoric  will  no  doubt  furnish  a  sovereign  panacea. 

Alexander  D.  Le  Nourry,  a   commentator   on   Clement 


104  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

(II,  9  :  1),  says,  "Nostri  porro.  sacri  baptismatis  imaginem 
non  solum  apud  Judceos,  sed  etiam  gentiles  fuisse  Clemens 
noster  ostendit.  Et  apud  gentiles  quidem  in  eo,  quod  de 
Penelope  et  Telemacbo  cecinit  Homerus  Odyss.  A'  et  A'. 
Apud  Juda20s  autera,  quia  mos  eorura  erat,  nt  ssepe  in  lecto 
tingerentur.  Sed  scite  Clemens  monet  hsec  plane  imperfecta 
fuisse  baptismata  quandoquidem  non  lavacro,  sed  animo 
mundi  purique  esse  debemus — Moreover  tbat  tbe  image  of 
our  sacred  baptism  existdd  not  only  among  tbe  Jews  but  also 
among  tbe  beatben,  our  Clement  sbows.  Among  tbe  beatben 
as  sbovvn  by  wbat  Homer  sang  of  Penelope  and  Telemacbus, 
Odyss.  A'  and  J'.  But  among  tbe  Jews,  because  it  was  tbeir 
custom  to  be  frequently  cleansed  on  tbe  coucb.  But  Clement 
justly  admonisbes  tbat  tbese  baptisms  were  evidently  im- 
perfect, because  we  ougbt  to  be  clean  and  pure  by  tbe  mind 
and  not  by  wasbing." 

According  to  tbis  interpreter  of  .Clement,  band-wasbings 
w^ere  baptisms,  and  tbey  were  administered  (even  by  ihigo, 
"tingerentur")  "  on  tbe  coucb." 

3Iode  of  Hand-washing. 

Wetstein  (Matt.  20),  speaking  of  tbe  quantity  of  water 
used  and  tbe  mode  of  applying  it  in  band-wasbing,  says: 
"Rabbi  Akiba  was  cast  into  prison,  and  Rabbi  Josbua  Gar- 
sites  ministered  unto  bim.  And  tbey  brougbt  bim,  daily, 
water  for  wasbing  and  drinking.  N"ow  it  bappened  on  one 
occasion  tbat  tbe  jailor  found  bim  and  said,  '  You  bave  a" 
large  quantity  of  water  to-day;  is  it  to  perforate  tbe  walls 
of  your  prison?'  Then  be  poured  one-balf  of  it  out  and  left 
the  remainder.  Rabbi  Akiba  was  told  wdiat  bad  been  done, 
yet  be  said,  'Pour  tbe  water  on  my  bands.'  An  eggful  and 
abalf  is  tbe  quantity  fixed  for  wasbing  tbe  bands  of  one 
person."  Ligbtfoot  says  a  log  was  six  eggsbells  full,  and  a 
quarter  of  a  log  was  sufficient  to  wash  tbe  bands  of  one  or 
two  persons,  a  balf  of  a  log  for  tbree  or  four  persons,  and  a 
wbole  log  for  five,  ten,  or  one  bundred  persons.    W.  447. 


PROTRACTED  USAGE.  105 


PROTRACTED  USAGE. 

Two  hundred  years,  more  or  less,  intervene  between  the 
baptisms  in  Sirach  31 :  30,  Judith  12  :  7,  and  this  baptism  in 
Mark  7:4.  They  were  all  of  the  same  general  character, 
designed  to  change  a  condition  of  ceremonial  defilement  into 
a  condition  of  ceremonial  purity.  At  the  beginning  of  these 
two  centuries  and  at  their  close,  we  find  the  same  word 
(/SaTTTttw),  never  expressing  form  of  action,  always  expressing 
completeness  of  condition,  used  to  express  the  thorough 
change  of  condition  effected  by  this  Jewish  rite.  There  is 
the  most  positive  evidence  that  materials  varying  in  nature 
and  applied  by  varying  forms  of  action  were  employed  in 
these  rites,  and  vet  one  word  is  found  living  throus-h  all 
changes.  Is  there  any  unity  pervading  these  diversities  ? 
There  is  a  unity  of  ceremonial  condition  eifected,  indifferently, 
by  ashes,  blood,  or  water,  by  washing,  pouring,  sprinkling; 
and  that  uniform  condition  is  uniformly  characterized  by 
/SaTTTttw,  which  word  does  never  express  form  of  action,  but 
does  always  express  condition,  and  by  long  appropriation 
expresses  the  specific  condition  of  ceremonial  purification. 
During  these  centuries  of  baptism  there  is  no  conclusive 
evidence  of  a  single  man,  woman,  or  child  having  ever  been 
dipped  into  water  in  order  to  this  ceremonial  purification. 
And  if  there  were  evidence  that  any  such  fact  had  ever  oc- 
curred, it  could  not  be  laid  at  the  door  of  ^a-nri'^co,  for  it  has 
no  such  meaning.  To  change  the  meaning  of  this  word 
from  a  demand  for  intusposition  unlimited  in  time,  to  a  dip- 
ping,  an  act  of  momentary  continuance,  is  to  revolutionize 
the  word  in  the  most  radical  manner.  Dr.  Conant  says, 
that  the  metaphorical  meaning  of  /3a:rr£tw  is  the  same  as  its 
literal  meaning.  When  or  where  does  such  meaning  point 
to  a  dip jnvg  origin?  To  dip  is  to  perform  a  transient  act, 
ordinarily  if  not  universally,  issuing  in  a  feeble  and  limited 
result.  For  this  reason  the  word  is  adapted,  in  metaphor, 
to  express  a  result  characterized  by  feebleness  and  limitation. 
And  this  is  its  invariable  usage.  A  writer  who  wished  to 
express  a  mental  or  moral  impression  which  was  in  its  char- 


106  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

acter  pervading,  persistent,  and  profound,  and  should  employ 
dip  for  that  purpose,  would  not  act  less  absurdly  than  the 
man  who  should  throw  a  feather  into  the  scales  to  counter- 
balance a  ton  weight.  On  the  other  hand  the  intusposi- 
tion  of  an  object  within  an  enveloping  solid,  serai-solid,  or 
fluid,  for  an  unlimited  time,  must  be  exhaustive  of  the  influ- 
ence of  such  enveloping  material  over  the  inclosed  object. 
If,  therefore,  it  is  desired  to  express  beyond  the  range  of 
physics  a  condition  which  is  exhaustive  of  influence,  full, 
pervading,  controlling,  the  word  which  is  expressive  of  such 
intuspositiou  is  the  word  fitted  to  the  task.  And  that  word 
which  is  so  used  by  the  Greeks,  century  after  century,  is 
p,ar.ri'^m.  This  distinction  of  conception  is  in  the  fitness  of 
things  and  is  most  radical.  It  is  the  elemental  distinction 
between  /Sdrrw  and  t3a-riXoj.  It  is  invariably  observed  by  all 
Classic,  Jewish,  and  Christian  writers.  There  is  not  the 
shadow  of  a  dift'erence,  as  to  this  radical  element,  among  in- 
spired and  uninspired  writings. 

In  the  Classic  fable  of  Mars,  Vulcan,  and  Neptune,  Mars 
(iron)  is  represented  as  having  his  condition  changed  by 
being  brought  under  the  power  of  Vulcan  (fire);  but  Mars 
(iron,  now  heated)  is  released  from  this  new  condition  and 
restored  to  his  original  condition  of  coldness  through  the 
intervention  of  Neptune  (water).  Iron  is  brought  under  the 
influence  of  fire,  but  hot  iron  is  brought  under  the  influence 
of  cold  water — ^amiUrai  uSaru  It  is  not  the  mersing  quality 
of  water  which  is  here  involved,  but  its  cold-producing 
quality.  The  whole  fable  turns  on  influence,  overmastering 
influence,  and  this  is  expressed  by  the  form  of  the  Greek.* 

In  like  manner  the  Jew  who  came  in  contact  with  "  a 
bone,"  "  a  heathen  camp,"  or  "  the  market,"  had  his  condi- 
tion changed  from  ceremonial  purity  to  ceremonial  impurity. 
And  in  this  condition  he  remained  (as  Mars  under  the  power 

*  In  like  manner  (in  the  absence  of  all  semblance  of  dipping  or  covering) 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  speaks  of  the  baptism  (changed  condition)  of  water  by 
fire  and  the  lloly  Spirit — "  As  water  in  a  caldron,  set  to  the  lire,  receives 
the  force  of  the  firo,  so,  the  water  of  baptism  by  the  Spirit  is  raised  to  a 
divine  and  inefl'able  virtue." — Lighifoot^  v.  37. 


BAPTISM   OF   CUPS   AND   COUCHES.  107 

of  Vuleau)  until  released  from  it  by  the  ritual  use  of  ashes 
or  pure  water  (as  Mars  was  released  by  Neptune).  To  make 
^aKziZw  express  in  such  cases  a  "dipping"  involves  the  two- 
fold radical  error,  1.  Of  engrafting  into  the  word  the  idea 
of  modal  action,  which  is  entirely  foreign  to  its  nature,  and 
2.  Of  making  its  condition  essentially  evanescent,  which  is 
outright  murder. 

Such  usage  could  not  but  be  eminently  instructive  to  John 
as  to  the  meaning  and  power  of  this  word  which  he  was 
called  upon  to  use  so  freely  in  his  ministry. 


BAPTIZINGS    OF    DOMESTIC    UTENSILS   AND    DINNER    COUCHES. 

Mark  7 : 4. 

"  And  there  are  many  other  things  which  they  have  received 
to  hold,  the  baptizings  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  couches." 

"  Ka\  aXXa  ttoXM  idTiv  a  TzapiXajjov  xparslv  ^aTzriaiiohq  noTrjptcuv  xai 
^effTuJv  xai  ^aX/.icuv  xai  xXtvu».^^ 

j  Mode  of  Purijicaiion. 

It  will  be  admitted,  that  these  various  articles  were  in  a 
condition  of  ceremonial  impurity.  It  will,  also,  be  admitted, 
that  the  end  sought  by  the  tradition  of  the  elders  was  to 
change  this  condition  into  one  of  ceremonial  purity.  And 
it  will  be,  farther,  admitted,  that  the  power  to  effect  this 
change  of  condition  belonged  to  water,  ritually  used,  inde- 
pendently of  its  physically  cleansing  power. 

These  things  being  admitted,  it  follows,  1.  That  the  de- 
mand made  by  this  rite  for  its  objects  was  not  a  physical 
mersion.  2.  It  was  not  a  physical  cleansing.  3.  It  was  for 
ceremonial  purity.  4.  The  power  of  water  to  make  cere- 
monially pure  being  independent  of  the  quantity  used,  and 
of  the  manner  of  use,  quantity  and  manner  cannot  enter  into 
the  rite  unless  by  express  statement.  5.  Inasmuch  as  ^a-Ti^o) 
affixes  no  limit  to  the  form  of  action  by  which  its  demand 


108  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

is  accomplished,  and  as  little  to  the  time  of  continuance  of 
the  condition  effected  by  it,  and  there  being  no  other  limit- 
ing word,  it  follows  that  if  these  "cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  couches"  are  put  into  the  water  by  this  word,  no 
provision  is  made  for  taking  them  out,  which  is  an  incredible, 
not  to  say  absurd,  use  of  language.  6.  To  effect  a  thorough 
change  of  condition,  not  physical  but  ceremonial,  exhausts 
the  requirement  of  the  rite;  and  to  effect  such  condition, 
without  limitation  in  the  form  of  the  action  and  without 
limitation  in  the  time  of  its  continuance,  exhausts  the  de- 
mands of  ^uTtTi^uj.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  adapted  to  meet 
the  demands  of  the  rite,  not  through  any  change  in  its  char- 
acter effected  for  the  occasion,  but  because  of  its  own  essen- 
tial nature. 

Does  any  one  ask,  "  May  not  these  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels  have  been  baptized  by  dipping  them  into 
water  ? "  The  answer  is  unhesitatingly  given — Undoubtedly 
they  may  have  been,  and,  although  we  have  no  certain 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  quite  possibly,  were  so  in  fact. 
But  why  ask  this  question?  Is  it  with  a  view  to  the  conclu- 
sion, "  Then,  dipping  is  baptism?"  To  draw  such  a  con- 
clusion from  these  premises  would  be  as  erroneous  as  to 
conclude  that  an  axe  is  a  chip,  because  an  axe  makes  chips. 
The  dipping  of  a  "  cup  "  into  pure  water  may  effect  a  certain 
kind  of  baptism,  to  wit,  that  of  ceremonial  purification.  And 
it  does  so  for  the  same  reason  that  sprinkling  or  pouring 
water  upon  the  "cup"  will  effect  the  same  baptism.  The 
power  to  effect  the  baptism  is  in  the  nature  of  water,  and 
the  manner  in  which  the  water  is  applied  has  no  more  to  do 
with  the  result  than  the  nourishing  quality  of  food  depends 
upon  its  being  taken  by  means  of  a  knife,  or  a  fork,  or  a 
spoon.  There  are  some  baptisms  which  cannot  be  effected 
by  a  dipping.  A  drunken  baptism,  a  drowning  baptism,  a 
foundered  ship  baptism,  cannot  be  effected  by  a  dipping. 
Very  few  can  l)e;  into  none  does  it  enter  except  as  an  acci- 
dent. The  capability  of  dipping  to  effect  a  baptism  is 
limited  to  secondary  baptisms  of  a  special  character. 

The  essential  difference  between  ^dnrui  and  ^anri^to  cannot 


BAPTISM   OF   CUPS   AND   COUCHES.  109 

be  too  deeply  impressed  upon  the  mind.  The  distinction  is 
neither  fictitious  nor  nominal,  but  most  radical  and  inca- 
pable, except  destructively,  of  being  confounded. 

The  secondary  usage  of  these  words  not  only  reveals  but 
magnifies  their  differences.  The  dipping  of  an  object  into 
a  fluid  will,  ordinarily,  produce  but  a  trivial  effect;  l)ut  if 
the  fluid  be  impregnated  with  some  coloring  substance,  then 
the  object  dipped  into  it  becomes  materially  affected  by  it. 
From  this  result  the  word  secured  a  new  meaning:.  But 
other  forms  of  action  besides  dipping  produce  a  coloring 
effect;  so,  form  of  action  is  eliminated  from  iHnzaj  and  it  is 
employed  to  denote  a  result  (dyeing,  coloring)  without  any 
regard  to  the  modal  process  by  which  such  result  may  have 
been  attained.  Banri'^cj  has  never  been  applied  to  dyeing. 
But  it  is  much  more  naturally  and  directly  related  to  this 
secondary  use  of  ftdnrw  (by  which  a  result  is  expressed  with- 
out restriction  as  to  the  form  of  action  by  which  it  is  secured 
and  without  limitation  as  to  tlie  time  of  its  continuance)  than 
it  is  related  to  its  primary  use,  where  there  is  the  sharpest 
liniitation  both  as  to  form  and  time.  In  the  secondary  use 
of  [:tanziZto  there  is  not,  as  in  the  case  of  iSdmoj,  an  abandon- 
ment of  formal  action  and  limited  time,  for  these  things 
never  entered  into  its  primary  use:  but  a  simple  elimination 
of  physical  intusposition  as  essentially  entering  into  the  ex- 
ercise of  controlling  inlluence,  and  extending  the  application 
of  the  word  so  as  to  include  all  cases  of  pervading,  controHing, 
and  assimilating  influence  by  whatsoever  process  they  might 
be  accomplished.  As  an  olyect  may  be  baptcd  (though  un- 
dipped), colored^  by  having  berry-juice  dropped,  sprinkled, 
poured  upon  it,  so,  an  object  (cups,  pots)  may  be  baptized  (not 
mersed),  thoroughly  changed  as  to  ceremonial  condition,  by  having 
pure  water  dropped,  sprinkled,  or  poured  upon  it.  Unless 
the  usage  of /JarrTt'Cw  be  traced  to  the  secbndai"y  use  of /Jdrrrw, 
the  words  must  be  regarded  as  the  representatives  of  mental 
conceptions  which  are  the  extreme  opposites.  While  if  the 
point  of  contact  be  in  this  secondary  use,  then  modal  action 
is,  of  necessity,  excluded,  unless  it  has  ceased  to  be  true  that 
ex  nihilo  nihil  Jit. 


110  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Whether,  then,  these  cup,  pot,  and  brazen  vessel  baptisms 
were  effected  by  dipping,  by  pouring,  or  by  sprinkling, 
/Jarrj'Cw  says  nothing  of,  and  cares  nothing  for,  the  modal  act. 
The  word  makes  demand  for  and  is  satisfied  with  a  change 
of  condition  from  ceremonial  impurity  to  ceremonial  purity. 

Baptism  of  Couches. 

The  baptism  of  "couches"  is  separated  from  that  of  "cups, 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,"  because  while  it  is  quite  possible 
or  even  highly  probable  that  these  small  articles  would  be 
baptized  (purified)  by  dipping,  it  is,  also,  quite  improbable, 
not  to  say  quite  impossible,  that  "couches"  (large  enough 
for  three  persons  to  recline  upon)  would  be  taken  up  and 
dipped  into  water,  or  would,  by  any  process,  be  entirely  en- 
veloped in  water  in  order  to  their  ceremonial  purification. 
An  argument  in  proof  of  f/Z^J  as  the  meaning  of /Sa^rnTw  is  de- 
rived by  Dr.  Carson  from  the  size  of  the  objects  said  to  be 
ba])tized.  He  says  that  the  word  is  not  applied  to  a  house 
or  to  any  object  so  large  that  it  cannot  be  taken  up  and  dip- 
ped. As,  not  unfrequently.  Dr.  Carson  is,  here,  in  error, 
and  the  real  facts  of  the  case  turn  the  argument,  heavily, 
against  him.  The  altar  on  Mount  Carmel  may  not  have 
been  as  big  as  "  a  house,"  but  it  was  too  big  for  Dr.  Carson 
to  attempt  to  pick  up  and  dip,  and  so  he  was  content  to 
allow  it  to  be  baptized  by  water  poured  over  it.  Some  ships 
that  lie  baptized  in  the  ocean  are  quite  as  large  as  some 
"houses,"  and  yet  Dr.  Carson  has  witnessed  their  baptism 
many  a  time  in  Classic  story  without  any  arm  being  strong 
enough  to  lift  them  up  and  give  them  a  dipping.  The  sea- 
coast  is  as  unmanageable  in  any  attempt  to  lift  it  up  and  dip 
it  into  the  ocean  as  would  be  "a  house,"  and  yet  Dr.  Carson 
confesses  that  the  coasts  of  his  island  home  are  baptized 
daily.  The  city  of  Jotapata,  and  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  con- 
tained not  merely  one  house,  or  one  score  of  houses,  but 
hundreds  and  thousands,  and  yet,  somehow  or  other,  they 
were  baptized.  "All  Asia"  embraced  not  merely  houses 
and  cities,  but  kingdoms,  and  yet  "  all  Asia"  was  baptized! 
IIow  utterly  devoid  of  foundation  is  the  statement  that  uo 


BAPTISM   WITHOUT   DIPPING.  Ill 

objects  but  such  as  can  be  lifted  are  said  to  be  baptized,  this 
reference  to  facts  will  show.  The  friends  of  the  theory  in- 
volve themselves  in  the  most  inextricable  embarrassments 
by  confounding  dippings  with  baptisms.  Greek  writers 
never  employ  ^dTtzco  [dip)  to  denote  these  or  any  other 
baptisms. 

Of  these  couch  baptisms  Dr.  Carson  (p.  71)  says,  "  It 
would,  indeed,  be  a  very  inconvenient  thing.  It  would  be 
a  foolish  thing.  Such  religious  practice  was,  indeed,  ab- 
surd." And  yet  (p.  367)  he  says,  this  dipping  of  couches 
"is  not  only  possible,  but  of  easy  performance.  Couches 
may  be  immersed  (dipped)  without  any  difficulty;  and  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  reports  truly,  couches  were  immersed  (dipped) 
as  they  are  said  to  have  been  baptized."  And  (p.  453)  he 
farther  says,  "  In  fact,  to  allege  that  the  couches  were  not 
immersed  (dipped),  is  not  to  decide  on  the  authority  of  the 
word  used,  but  in  opposition  to  this  authority ;  to  give  the 
lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Inspiration  employs  a  word  to  desig- 
nate the  purification  of  the  couches  which  never  signifies 
anything  but  immerse  (dip).  If  they  were  not  immersed 
(dipped)  the  historian  is  a  talse  witness." 

Such  language  may  seem  to  the  theorists  to  indicate  high 
courage,  intense  conviction,  and  assured  truth.  To  sober- 
minded  persons  it  will  be  indicative  of  immeasurable  self- 
esteem  and  a  reckless  forgetfulness  of  that  reverence  which 
is  due  to  the  never-erring  Deity.  !N"o  man,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, has  a  right  to  make  falsehood  in  the  Deity  the 
alternative  to  the  truth  or  error  of  his  convictions.  To  do 
so  exhibits  the  most  condemuable  forgetfulness  of  that  igno- 
rance and  liability  to  error  which  separates,  by  an  infinity, 
man  from  God.  Dr.  Gale  was  as  fully  satisfied  that  /3a-rty 
never  signifies  anything  but  "  dip"  (rejecting  the  significa- 
tion to  dye),  as  that  Dr.  Carson  was  convinced  that  '■'•  ^arMXm 
signifies  through  all  Greek  literature  to  dip  and  nothing  but 
dip."  Suppose,  now,  that  Gale  in  interpreting  Revelation 
19  :  13,  ^z^ap-iii'Mw  at/zart,  had  Said,  "If  the  Holy  Spirit  reports 
truly  the  garment  was  ^dipped  in  blood,'  as  it  is  said  to  be 
^£t3atj.!xivuv.     To  allege  that  the  garment  was  not  dipped  in 


112  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

blood,  is  '  to  give  the  lie  to  the  II0I3'  Spirit.'  If  the  garment 
was  not  dipped  in  blood  the  inspired  historian  'is  a  false  wit- 
ness.' "  This,  once,  was  the  ground  occupied  by  all  who, 
now,  stand  on  the  theory.  The  explosion  of  this  erroneous 
univocalism  of  jSdnruj,  long  refused  at  the  hands  of  others, 
was  at  length,  accepted  at  the  hands  of  Carson.  And  he  and 
thc}^  gathered  their  forces  to  make  a  final  stand  for  "  dip  and 
nothing  but  dip"  under  the  auspices  of /JaTrTj'^w.  If  Dr.  Car- 
son, standing  by  the  grave  of  his  friend  Gale,  had  read — 
"this  garment  was  dipped  in  blood  or  'the  Holy  Spirit  has 
not  reported  truly'  " — would  not  the  statement  have  been 
most  painful  to  him  in  view  of  the  better  knowledge  to 
which  he  and  his  friends  have  attained  ?  Would  he  not 
have  been  grieved  at  heart  to  think  that  his  friend  had  ever 
been  guilty  of  the  presumptuous  folly  of  saying,  that  a  gar- 
ment,/S£;5a,r//^fv«!/ aV-art,  must  be  ^Ulippcd"  in  blood  or  John, 
inspired  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  does  not  tell  the  truth,  for 
"/5d7rrw  means  dip  and  nothing  but  dip?"  He  now  sees  that 
Gale's  univocalism  was  all  wrong,  and  that  John  was  no 
"  false  witness,"  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  report  truly, 
although  the  garment,  jSe^a/i/iivov  St/xaTt,  was  not  "dipped  in," 
but  di/ed  by  blood. 

Dr.  Fuller  says,  that  he  is  abundantly  convinced  that 
[iaxTi'^u}  does  not  mean  "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip."  If  he 
should  visit  the  grave  of  Carson  at  Tubbermore,  would  not 
he,  in  turn,  feel  sincere  sorrow  that  his  honored  friend  had, 
with  regard  to  this  word,  fallen  into  a  similar  error  with 
Gale  in  attributing  to  it  a  modal  univocalism  ?  That  he  had 
ever  allowed  himself  to  saj^,  "if  the  Holy  Spirit  reports 
truly,  the  couches  were  immersed  (dipped),  as  they  are  said 
to  have  been  baptized."  Dr.  Fuller,  now,  sees  that  couches 
might  be  said  to  be  "baptized,"  though  not  dipped,  and  "the 
Holy  Spirit  report  truly,"  as  Carson  saw,  that  a  garment 
might  be  baptized  by  blood,  although  not  dipped  in  blood. 

The  editor  of  Lange  (Professor  Shedd)  remarks  on  this 
baptism  of  couches  :  "  That  these  couches  were  immersed 
in  every  instance  of  ceremonial  washing,  can  be  thought 
probable,  or  even  possible,  only  by  those  who  are  under  the 


BAPTISM   WITHOUT   DIEPING.  113 

necessity  of  holding  that  this  Greek  word  not  only  means 
to  dip  or  plunge,  originally,  but,  unlike  every  other  word, 
transferred  to  a  religious  use,  is  always  used  in  that  exclusive 
and  invariable  sense,  without  modification  or  exception ;  to 
those  who  have  no  purpose  to  attain  by  such  a  paradox,  the 
place  before  us  will  afford  if  not  conclusive  evidence,  at  least 
a  strong  presumption,  that  beds  (to  say  no  more)  might  be 
baptized  without  immersion." 

But  all  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  baptisms  must  go 
down  before  the  theory.  Dr.  Carson  provides  for  dipping 
these  couches  by  taking  them  to  pieces  and  carrying  them 
forth  to  the  water.  With  no  less  thoughtfulness  he  made 
provision  by  a  cattle  trough  for  Judith's  dipping  at  the 
fountain.  Why  he  did  not  take  the  altar  to  pieces  and  carry 
it  down  to  the  Mediterranean  and  dip  it  stone  by  stone,  I  do 
not  know.  If  the  pouring  of  "  four  pitchers  of  water"  over 
a  couch  would  not  suffice  for  its  baptism,  although  it  might 
answer  for  the  baptism  of  an  altar,  yet  would  not  the  out- 
pouring of  "  twelve  barrels"  meet  the  case?  However  this 
baptism  may  be  settled,  whether  dipped  by  Carson,  or  made 
"very  wet"  by  Fuller,  we  must  decline  the  offered  inter- 
vention of  a  bed-screw  to  get  them  to  the  dipping. 

BanrtaiJiobi;. 

"We  meet  in  this  passage  the  form  ^aTiziaixohq  for  the  first 
time.  By  its  form  the  idea  of  action,  the  process  for  eftect- 
ing  the  baptism,  is  preserved.  It  might  more  definitely  be 
translated  baptizings,  imrifyings ^  thus  distinguishing  it  from 
the  form  ^d-Tiaiia^  denotive  of  the  accomplished  result.  The 
phira]  form  may  have  arisen  either  from  a  diversity  of  species 
under  the  same  generic  defilement  and  purification,  or  from 
a  diversity  in  the  forms  of  purifying  as  suggested  by  the 
diversity  in  the  objects,  as  in  the  case  of  cups,  and  couches, 
and  persons,  or  from  the  necessarily  very  repetitious  char- 
acter of  the  ceremonial. 

8 


114  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   MEALS. 

Luke  11  :  37,  38. 

"And  as  he  spake  a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to  dine 
with  him;  and  he  went  in  and  sat  down  to  meat. 

"  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  was 
not  first  baptized  before  dinner." 

"  W  de  ^apiaaiuq  Idcbv  iOaviiaav^  otj  oh  TipioTov  kiSanrcffOrj  Tzpd  too 
d.piarov.''^ 

The  Theory  in  Difficulties. 

The  friends  of  the  theory  must  have  their  equanimity  not 
a  little  tried  by  meeting  with  baptism  after  baptism  in  which 
there  is  no  plain,  nor  probable,  nor  possible  "  dipping."  If 
there  were  a  few  rare  cases  of  such  baptisms,  overshadowed 
by  a  multitude  of  manifest  dipping  baptisms,  such  excep- 
tional cases  might  be  made  light  of;  but  when  score  after 
score  of  baptisms  pass  in  review  without  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  dipping  in  a  single  case,  what  shall  be  said  of  the 
axiom — "No  dipping  no  baptism?" 

Dr.  Carson  admits,  that  l^oah  was  not,  in  fact,  dipped  into 
the  flood,  but  he  points  to  him  down  in  the  bold  of  the 
floating  ark,  and  declares  that  therein  is  a  clear  case  of  quasi 
"  dipping."  As  the  millions  of  Israel  march  through  the  di- 
vided sea,  he  admits,  that  there  is  no  actual  dipping,  but  he 
declares  that  he  can  construct  a  baptistery  out  of  water  walls 
and  cloud  roof,  which  will  assuredly  give  the  marching  hosts 
a  quasi  dipi»ing.  lie  admits,  that  Elijah  was  not  dipped  as 
he  crossed  the  river  to  mount  the  chariot  which  was  to  bear 
him  to  the  skies;  but  ho  declares  that  the  going  down  and 
the  coming  up  is  certainly  a  quasi  di^tping.  Israel  in  cross- 
inir  the  Jordan  under  Joshua  are  admitted  not  to  have  re- 
ceived  an  actual  dipping;  but,  then,  to  cross  the  dried  chan- 
nel of  a  river  he  declares  to  be,  most  plainly,  a  quasi  dipping. 
Carmel's  altar  it  is  admitted  was  not  dipped  ;  but,  then,  it  is 
declared,  with  all  the  force  of  interrogation,  "  Who  cannot 
but  see,  that  four  pitchers  of  water  thrice  poured  is  a  most 


HAND-WASHING   BAPTIZES   THE   WHOLE   PERSON.  115 

admirable  quasi  clippiug?"  And  so  this  '■'■quasi  dipping" 
runs  through  the  long  list  of  baptisms  in  which  actual  dip- 
ping never  makes  an  appearance.  Difficulties,  thick  and 
sharp  as  a  thorn  hedge,  meet  the  theory  at  every  turn, 
mocking  everj-  attempt  to  prove  "  dipping  is  baptism  and 
baptism  is  dipping." 

When  the  modus  operandi  of  a  baptism  is  distinctly  stated, 
and  there  is  no  dipping  in  it,  the  cry  of  "figure"  is  raised, 
and  all  difficulties  are  hidden  in  a  cloud  of  imaginings. 
When  no  modus  is  stated,  and  yet  the  case  bristles  with  dif- 
ficulties protesting  against  a  dipping,  then  appeal  is  made  to 
"  the  word."  The  appeal  of  the  theory  is  not  to  facts,  but 
to  an  ill}^  regulated  imagination  and  to  a  fundamentally 
mistaken  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  word. 

The  baptism  under  consideration  must  be  added  to  the 
long  list  of  those  that  have  gone  before  in  which  no  shadow 
of  evidence  for  a  dipping  could  be  traced.  Our  blessed  Lord 
was,  in  this  world,  without  a  home  of  his  own  under  whose 
roof  he  might  lay  his  head,  and  within  whose  walls  he  might 
take  his  meals.  On  this  occasion  being,  at  mealtime,  near 
the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  he  is  invited  by  him  to  dine.  The 
invitation  is  accepted.  He  enters  the  house  and  takes  his 
place  at  the  table,  without  making  any  use  of  water  for 
ceremonial  purification  before  eating.  The  Pharisee  is  sur- 
prised that  he  has  not  first  been  baptized  (purified).  The 
facts  of  this  case  point  to  certain  well-assured  conclusions  : 

1.  The  Pharisee  must  have  expected  the  anticipated  baptism 
to  take  place  in  his  own  house;  (1)  because  if  in  any  other 
house,  he  could  not  have  known  whether  it  had  or  had  not 
been  observed;  (2)  because  there  was  no  opportunity  for  its 
observance,  after  the  invitation,  except  in  his  own  house. 

2.  Provision  must  have  been  made  in  the  Pharisee's  house 
for  this  baptism ;  otherwise  he  could  not  have  marvelled  at 
the  neglect.  3.  The  baptism  must  have  been  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  others ;  else  the 
Pharisee  could  not  have  "seen"  the  omission.  4.  The 
master  of  the  house  must  have  partaken  of  this  baptism 
subsequent  to  the  invitation,  and  after  leaving  the  throng 


116  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  the  liigbway;  and  if  so,  tlieii  it  must  have  been  a  baptism 
which  could  be  effected  witliout  retirement,  for  which  the 
narrative  makes  no  provision.  5.  There  were  many  others 
at  this  dinner.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  other  failed 
to  observe  the  baptism,  but  the  Saviour.  There  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  this  Pharisee  would  have  permitted  any  other 
to  have  sat  with  him  at  the  table  with  "  unclean  hands." 
The  Pharisees  (Mark  7  :  1)  are  not  represented  as  eating 
with  the  "  unbaptized  disciples."  The  implication  is,  that 
they  stood  aloof  and  found  foult.  But  if  all  the  Pharisees 
and  lawyers  sitting  at  that  table  were  baptized  after  coming 
from  the  highway  and  the  crowd,  before  they  sat  down  to 
eat,  then  the  baptism  must  have  been  of  such  a  nature  as 
could  have  been  effected  by  a  large  number,  in  a  private 
house,  on  a  suddenly  arising  emergency. 

In  connection  with  these  facts,  stated  or  of  necessary  in- 
ference, must,  also,  be  taken  the  following  truths :  1.  There 
is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  Pharisees  were  in  the 
habit  of  dipping  themselves  in  water  before  dinner.  2.  There 
is  no  satisfactory  evidence  showing,  that  guests  were  in  the 
habit  of  dipping  themselves  in  water,  at  the  house  of  their 
host,  before  dinner.  3.  There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  to 
show,  that  the  Saviour  was  expected  to  do  what  was  not 
equally  expected  to  be  done  by  others.  If,  therefore,  he 
was  expected  to  dip  himself  in  water,  all  others  would  be 
expected  to  dip  themselves  in  water.  4.  There  is  no  satis- 
factorj'  evidence  to  show,  that  any  facilities  for  dipping  into 
water  were  provided  on  this  occasion.  5.  There  is  no  satis- 
factory evidence  to  show,  that  [ianri'^m  is  here  used  in  its 
primary  meaning,  and  if  it  was,  no  two  leading  Baptist 
writers  agree  as  to  what  that  meaning  is.  6.  There  is  the 
most  satisfactory  evidence  to  show,  that  ^anriZu}  does  not 
mean  io  dip,  and  that  such  a  meaning  is  diametrically  op- 
posed to  the  force  of  the  word.  7.  There  is  satisfactory  evi- 
dence (John  2  :  6)  to  show,  that  provision  was  made  in 
Jewish  houses  for  the  purification  of  guests  in  other  ways 
than  by  dipping  their  persons  into  Avater,  or  by  covering  the 
entire  body  with  water  in  any  way  whatever.     8.  There  is 


HAND-WASHING   BAPTIZES   THE   WHOLE   PERSON.  117 

satisfactory  evidence  that  such  provision  was  made  in  the 
house  of  this  Pharisee,  and  one  score  or  one  hundred  could 
have  made  use  of  such  provision,  "  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  Jews,"  in  passing  from  the  highway  to  the  dinner- 
table.  9.  There  is  satisfactory  evidence  to  show,  that  the 
washing  of  the  hands,  whether  effected  by  pouring  water 
npon  them  or  by  washing  them  in  water,  was  called,  not  a 
baptism  of  the  hands,  merely,  but  a  baptism  of  the  entire  jjer- 
son.  The  testimony  of  Clement  and  Ambrose  to  this  effect 
has,  already,  been  given ;  see,  also,  that  of  Theophylact  (in 
loc),  who  describes  the  purification  expected  (which  of  ne- 
cessity extended  over  the  entire  person)  as  a  hand-washing. 

Inierj^reiation. 

The  facts  of  this  case  are  so  patent  and  so  inimical  to  a 
dipping  of  the  body  into  water,  that  commentators  (even 
when  accepting,  erroneously,  to  dip  as  the  primary  meaning 
of  the  word)  have,  almost  unanimously,  refused  to  recognize 
a  dipping  of  the  body  as  entering  into  this  transaction. 

Campbell,  of  Aberdeen,  who  contends  very  unqualifiedly 
for  dii)  as  the  meaning  of  jSanrt^w,  and  who  translates  in  Mark 
7  :  4  by  ^'dij)  (their  hands),"  in  this  passage  translates,  "  the 
Pharisee  was  surprised  to  observe  that  he  used  no  ivashing 
before  dinner."  Such  language  can  neither  point  to  an  ex- 
clusive dipping  of  the  bodj',  nor  of  the  hands.  Bengel  says, 
"He  sat  dowMi  to  meat  forthwith,  without  having  ivashed.'' 
Calvin  says,  "The  Jew^s  had  added  many  other  washings 
to  those  prescribed  by  law,  and  more  especiallj^,  that  no 
person  should  partake  of  food  till  he  had  been  washed  with 
the  water  of  purification,"  and  refers  to  the  hand-washing 
in  Mark  7  :  3,  and  the  purifyings  in  John  2  :  6.  Olshausen 
makes  the  baptism  a  hand- washing — "  He  observed  that 
Jesus  ate  loithoui  having  washed  his  hands."  So,  Rosenmuller, 
"  Pharisaeus  autem  admiratus  est,  quod  non  ante  ccDenam 

rnailUS    ablaisset.        ^Efiar^Tiadrj,    i.    e.,    bA4'aro   raq  y^slpaq.''^      This 

hand-vv'ashing  Eosenmiiller  understands  to  be  a  washing- 
purification,  not  of  the  hands,  merely,  but  of  the  entire 
person,  a  complete  baptism.     He  adds,  ^^  Illoiis  ex  ludaico 


118  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

dogmate  omiiis  cibus  erat  immundus."  Grotins,  in  like 
manner,  regards  iiSar^riaOrj  as  used  for  ht4<dTo  ra?  yCipaq. 
Bloomfield  thinks,  that  "  [ia-zi'^zaOai  has  the  same  sense  as 
XvvzffOai  and  yepviTTTecv,  iccishing  and  hand-washing,  and  agrees 
with  Beza,  Pole,  and  Pococke,  that  it  was  so  used  as  to  com- 
prehend the  one  as  well  as  the  other." 

Carson. 

How  do  these  facts,  which  so  strongly  impress  the  learned 
and  the  good,  affect  Dr.  Carson?  Does  it  lead  him  to  ques- 
tion the  correctness  of  his  "demonstration"  that  this  word 
means  "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  litera- 
ture?" By  no  means.  He  puts  his  back  against  "the 
word,"  and  shutting  his  eyes  against  everything  else  but  the 
"demonstration"  (of  which  his  friends  are  ffettino;  heartily 
tired),  he  declares,  in  language  which  few  would  venture  to 
use, — "  They  expected  that  Christ  would  have  immersed 
(dipped)  before  eating.  To  deny  this  is  to  give  the  lie  to 
the  inspired  narrator.  The  word  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
signifies  immersion  (dipping)  and  immersion  (dipping) 
only"  (p.  450). 

It  might  have  been  supposed  that  Dr.  Carson  Avonld  have 
been  satisfied  with  challenging  the  worth  of  all  human  learn- 
ing which  did  not  accept  his  dictum,  without  making  issue 
with  divine  inspiration ;  but  it  seems  otherwise.  To  send 
philosophers  and  archangels  to  school  for  "peeping"  against 
his  demonstration  is  but  an  appetizing  morceau  to  an  insa- 
tiable self-confidence.  He  gambles  with  the  Deity  as  his 
stake,  crying, — "I  win,  or  God  is  not  true! "  So  the  theory 
works  itself  out  in  one  direction. 

The  Absolute  Use  of  BanriZu). 

"We  have  met  with  the  constant  and  unhesitating  absolute 
use  oi'  jSaTZTtCat  in  connection  with  Jewish  purifications.  Such 
usage  claims  our  special  attention.  Such  phraseology  does 
not  express  a  com[)lete  idea  except  to  those  who  by  familiar 
use  are  able  to  supply  what  is  lacking,  or  who  apprehend  a 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   MEALS.  119 

meaning,  tlirougli  appropriation,  not  originally  inherent  in 
the  words. 

No  complete  idea  is  expressed  by — "he  marvelled  that  he 
was  not  first  baptized;"  whether  "baptized"  be  represented 
by  mersed  or  dipped.  But  the  friends  of  the  theory  would 
supplement  by  adding — "  dipped  in  water."  But  here  we 
would  inquire  where  the  "water"  comes  from?  "We  have 
such  expressions  as  "  diverse  baptisms,"  "  baptisms  of  cups 
and  couches,"  "baptize  from  the  market,"  "baptize  from 
the  dead,"  "baptize  at  a  fountain,"  but  in  none  of  them 
does  "water"  appear  by  verbal  statement.  Is  it  replied, 
that  although  "water"  is  not  expressly  stated,  and  bloody 
and  ashes,  and  jire,  did  enter  into  some  baptisms,  still,  there 
is  abundant  evidence  that  into  these  baptisms  before  eating, 
water,  and  not  blood,  nor  ashes,  nor  fire,  entered  as  the  ele- 
ment used,  as  shown  by  the  baptism  of  Judith  at  a  fountain, 
by  "the  water  pots"  at  Cana,  and  by  other  historical  evi- 
dence. This  is  satisfactory  so  far  as  the  presence  of  this  ele- 
ment is  concerned.  It  has  a  clear  right  to  appear  in  the  rite. 
We  would,  now,  ask  for  authority  for  the  manner  of  its  in- 
troduction. Can  any  case  of  Jewish  ceremonial  baptism  be 
pointed  out  in  which  it  is,  by  express  statement,  declared 
that  a  person  or  a  thing  was  "baptized  into  water?"  As  no 
such  statement  is  known  to  us,  we  shall  take  the  liberty  of 
assuming  that  none  exists,  until  evidence  to  the  contrarj^  is 
adduced;  and  this  the  more  especially  because  it  is  expressly 
stated,  that  Judith  was  baptized  at  the  fountain  and  not  in 
it,  and  whatever  baptisms  took  place  in  Cana,  "after  the 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,"  they,  too,  must  have 
been  at  the  water  pots  and  not  in  them. 

Is  it  said,  that  the  "  into"  is  provided  for  by  "  dip;"  one 
cannot  be  dipped  without  being  dipped  in.  The  reasoning  is, 
in  itself,  quite  unexceptionable.  If  "dip"  has  the  right  of 
presence,  his  attendant  "into"  has  an  equal  right.  But  we 
deny  the  right  of  dip  to  the  fellowship  which  he  seeks.  We 
pronounce  him  to  be  an  impostor,  who,  under  a  title  to  which 
he  had  no  just  claim,  has  thrust  himself  into  relations  to 
which,  on  his  own  merits,  he  could  never  attain.    And  until 


120  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

lie  shall  bring  better  credentials  than  he  yet  has  done,  we 
must  unceremoniously  strip  him  of  his  borrowed  habiliments 
and  dismiss  him  from  Jewish  baptisms  together  with  his 
prepositional  satellite. 

Are  the  friends  of  the  theory  willing  to  accept  the  exposed 
imposture  (not  by  any  means  of  themselves,  but)  of  dip,  and 
manfully  take  mcrse  in  its  stead  ?  They  may  do  so,  with  the 
joyous  conviction  that  "m  water"  will  wait  on  this  word  as 
faithfully  as  on  the  discarded  impostor.  Let  us  see:  1. 
BaTzriZM  is  used  abundantly  in  cases  where  it  is  followed  by 
the  prepositions  with  and  by,  expressed  or  implied  in  the  nude 
dative.  This  is  so  where  the  baptism  is  effected  by  fluids 
(dtvw,  udari,  C.  B.,  p.  317).  Bdiirm  is,  also,  used  with  a  nude 
dative,  but  in  such  case  the  change  of  form  betokens  a  change 
of  meaning,  and  "dip  m"  becomes  metamorphosed  into 
"  dyed  byJ'  Who  shall  forbid  ^ar.zi'^u}  from  announcing,  by 
like  change  of  syntax,  a  no  less  fundamental  change  of  mean- 
ing? Certainly  these  facts  do  utterly  preclude  the  assump- 
tion, that  this  and  like  baptisms  were  in  water  and  not  by 
water.  Any  passage  declaring,  that  men  and  women  were, 
in  Jewish  baptisms,  to  be  baptized  in  water,  and  not  by  water, 
has  never  been  adduced;  and  such  assumption  is  not  only 
intolerable  in  view  of  the  facts  stated,  but,  also,  2.  Because 
the  essential  force  of  the  word  does  not  allow  such  use  of 
water  to  be  made  in  religious  rites.  To  baptize  a  human 
being  in  water  would,  by  the  force  of  its  terms,  convey  to 
the  mind  of  a  Classic  Greek  the  idea  of  death  by  drowning, 
^sop,  Alcibiades,  Ileliodorus,  Lucian,  Plutarch,  Themistius, 
all,  drown  by  /3a7rr£'>  (C.  B.,  p.  2GG).  It  is  inadmissible, 
therefore,  to  su[)pose  (there  is  no  such  statement  to  be  found), 
that  these  Jews  were  baptized  in  water.  Is  it  said,  "  There 
was  no  design  to  drowri  these  persons,  therefore  the  natural 
force  of  this  word  cannot  apply."  I  answer:  If  mcrse  has  so 
far  changed  as  to  be  transformed  into  dip,  the  change  is  as 
great  as  \f  cdpha  were  changed  into  omeya,  in  which  case  the 
univocalism  of  the  theory  perishes.  That  this  is  no  exag- 
gerated representation  of  the  ditt'erence  between  mersc  and 
dip  will  be  seen  by  the  following  quotations : 


BAPTISM    BEFORE    MEALS.  121 

' '  Immersed 
Deep  in  the  flood,  found,  when  he  sought  it  not, 
The  DEATH  he  had  deserved,  and  died  alone." 

"  Dead 
By  cold  SUBMERSION,  razor,  rope,  or  lead." 

"What  is  there,  here,  which  produces  death  but  mersion  in 
loaierf  Is  there  one  iota  added  to  the  proper  force  of  the 
terms?  If  in  these  passages  you  substitute  dijiping  for  mer- 
sion, will  any  one  be  hurt?  Is  not  one  of  the  grand  distinc- 
tions between  "mersion  in  water"  and  "dipping  in  water," 
that  the  former  will  drown  (will  always  drown  unless  some 
foreign  influence  interfere  to  prevent  this  result),  while  dip- 
ping in  water  will  not  drown  ?  Is  it  not,  then,  one  of  the 
most  extraordinary  assumptions  that  ever  was  made,  to  as- 
sume, without  support  by  a  single  statement,  that  the  bap- 
tism was  in  water,  and,  then,  to  escape  a  drowning,  to  make 
the  farther  extraordinary  assumption,  that  merse  has  been 
changed  into  dij^,  [iaiTTiZoj  into  iSdizruj ! 

We  say,  that  this  absolute  use  (persisted  in  through  cen- 
turies in  a  rite  of  daily  recurrence)  is  proof,  that  the  word 
liad  received  a  coloring  from  its  surroundings,  and  did,  di- 
rectly, express  the  purifying  character  of  the  rite.  The 
Pharisee  "  marvelled  that  he  was  not  first  jmrified"  before  he 
took  his  place  at  the  table. 

By  a  similar  process  words  are  continually  securing  new 
meanings.  Thus  (Winer,  p.  593),  "  didyetv  absorbs  toV  j3iov, 
with  which  it  had  been  associated  in  familiar  phrase,  and, 
alone,  expresses  to  live.  So,  dcarptjSetv,  absorbing  rdv  //>owv, 
expresses  to  sojourn.  And  in  a  similar  manner  -upoacpip^iv  se- 
cures the  meaning  to  sacrifice,  and  -Kpoaxovsiv  to  worship.^' 

Ellipsis. 

This  is  not  a  case  of  mere  ellipsis,  but  a  case  in  v/hich  the 
power  to  express  directly  a  new  meaning  has  been  attained. 
Winer  (p.  581)  says,  "  Ellipsis  consists  in  the  omission  of  a 
word  the  meaning  of  which  must  be  supplied  in  thought  in 
order  to  complete  the  sentence,"  and  quotes  Herm.  p.  153 : 


122  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

"  Ellipseos  propria  est  ratio  grammatica,  qufB  posita  est  in 
eo,  ut  oratio,  etiamsi  aliqiiid  oniissum  sit,  integra  esse  cen- 
seatur,  quia  id  quod  omissum  est,  ueeessario  tamen  intelligi 
debcat,  ut  quo  non  intellecto  seuteutia  nulla  futura  sit." 
The  usage  before  us  has  clearly  passed  beyond  this  form. 
It  comes  rather  under  the  subsequent  statements :  "  The 
ellipsis  in  all  these  expressions  has  been  sanctioned  by  long 
usage,  and  for  that  very  reason  is  plain,  especially  in  par- 
ticular contexts,  to  all  familiar  with  the  language."  "  On 
the  other  hand,  a  number  of  transitive  verbs  have,  in  a 
similar  way,  rid  themselves  in  the  course  of  time  of  the  case 
of  the  noun  with  which  they  formed  a  current  phrase,  and 
are  now  iised  all  alone  to  express  the  same  meaning^'  (pp.  592, 
593).  This  acquired  meaning  is  established  in  Judaic  Bap- 
tism by  most  abundant  and  direct  evidence. 

Parallel  Classical  Usage, 

Between  Plato  and  Plutarch  there  was  an  interval  of  five 
centuries.  During  all  that  time  there  was  an  absolute  use 
of  /3a7:T£'>,  with  a  special  application.  Thus  Plato  says,  "I 
am  one  of  those  baptized;"  and  Plutarch,  half  a  thousand 
3'ears  afterward,  says,  "not  yet  hapiizcd;"  no  adjunct  ex- 
pository word  being  used.  The  word  is  evidently  self-ex- 
pounding. A  meaning  has  been  secured  from  long  use  in 
uniform  relations,  and,  then,  those  relations  no  longer  need- 
ing verbal  expression,  are  dropped.  This  use,  among  the 
Classics,  is  developed  in  connection  with  wine-drinking,  a 
custom  as  universal,  as  frequently  recurring,  and  as  abiding 
through  centuries,  as  was  the  Jewish  custom  of  water  puri- 
fications. In  the  one  case  the  word  represents  an  intoxica- 
ting influence,  and  in  the  other  a  purifying  influence.  But 
wine  has  other  qualities  than  that  by  which  it  effects  a  con- 
dition of  intoxication,  and  when  these  other,  rarer,  baptisms 
are  referred  to,  it  is  necessary  to  introduce  an  appropriate 
adjunct.  Thus,  when  a  wine  baptism,  not  intoxicating  but 
destructive  of  life,  is  spoken  of,  the  word  is  not  us6d  abso- 
lutely, but  with  explanatory  terms,  thus:  "Why  do  many 
wine  drinkers  die  ?   Because  the  quantity  of  the  wine  baptizes 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   MEALS.  123 

the  2^hysical  cmd  the  vital  power  and  ivarmth"  (Alex.  Aphrod. 
Medical  Problems,  I,  17).  In  ordinary  wine  baptism  it  is  the 
power  to  regulate  mental  and  physical  action  which  is  bap- 
tized. Josephus,  in  like  manner,  when  he  would  speak  of 
a  wine  baptism  other  than  that  which  is  ordinary,  introduces 
appropriate  adjunct  terms,  as — "baptized  into  insensibiliiy  and 
sleep."  But  Philo,  when  he  would  speak  of  that  wine  bap- 
tism to  which  the  word  was  appropriated,  uses  it,  like  the 
Classics,  without  any  adjunct — "  before  they  are  completely 
baptized."  Water,  like  wine,  is  capable  of  effecting  a  variety 
of  baptisms.  When  the  Classics  would  express  that  baptism 
of  water  which  is  effected  by  its  cold-producing  quality,  they 
use  water  with  the  instrumental  dative — "  hot  iron  is  bap- 
tized by  loater"  When  they  speak  of  that  water  baptism 
which  is  destructive  of  life,  they  represent  the  victim  as  bap- 
tized in  ivater.  Thus  the  man-hater  Timon  murders  his  vic- 
tim by  baptizing  him  in  loater.  And  the  no  less  man-hating 
Herod  murders  his  rival  by  baptizing  him  in  water.  But 
when  the  Jews  would  speak  of  that  water  baptism  which 
results  from  the  purifying  quality  of  this  element,  they  then 
use  the  w^ord  without  adjunct,  as  a  self-expressive  term — 
"he  marvelled  that  he  was  not  hrst  baptized" — purified 
ceremonially. 

Evidence  the  most  manifold  and  from  all  quarters  (from 
language  development,  from  appropriation,  from  change  of 
syntax,  from  the  impossibility  of  a  primary,  physical  use) 
proves  most  indubitably,  that  as  this  Greek  word  indicates 
a  complete  change  of  condition  by  mersiou,  so  it  no  less  in- 
dicates any  analogous  change  of  condition  though  not  effected 
by  mersiou.  BaKri^m  marks  the  change  of  condition  of  an 
impure  object  passing  into  a  condition  of  purity  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  without  any  regard  whatever  to  a  mersion, 
just  as  ^dTZTu)  marks  the  change  of  color  in  an  object  on  which 
berry -juice  is  sprinkled  or  poured,  without  any  regard  what- 
ever to  a  dipping.  The  proof  of  the  former  is  as  varied,  as 
clear,  and  as  direct,  as  is  the  proof  of  the  latter.  Bdnro)  does 
not  mean  to  sprinkle;  yet  white  linen  sprinkled  with  blood 
is  bapAed  by  blood;  not  because  of  the  sprinkling  (the  action 


124  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

might  have  been  that  of  dropping,  or  pouring),  but  because 
blood,  however  applied  to  white  linen,  changes  its  color. 
Banzt'Cu)  does  not  mean  to  sprinkle ;  yet  a  ceremonially  im- 
pure object  sprinkled  with  pure  water  is  baptized  by  water 
(not  because  of  the  sprinklhig,  the  action  might  have  been 
in  any  other  form,  but),  because  pure  water,  in  whatever 
form  it  is  applied  to  a  ceremonially  impure  object,  has  a 
power  to  change  the  condition  of  that  object.  If  sprinkled 
blood  did  not  change  the  color  of  its  object,  its  work  could 
not  be  represented  by  ^d-KTw ;  and  if  sprinkled  water  did  not 
change  the  condition  of  its  object,  there  would  be  no  demand 
for  the  service  of  ^ar.Ti'^uj. 

What,  now,  does  the  theory  say  to  all  this?  Does  it 
sternly  point  to  a  great  cloud  of  witnesses  in  the  shape  of 
unquestionable  water  dippings  (exponential  of  jSanTiXtu)  in 
Jewish  purifications  ?  ISTot  to  a  great  cloud,  certainly,  and 
just  as  certainly,  not  to  a  solitary  case.  But  instead  of  such 
hard  argument  we  have  the  cry — "  The  word !  the  word ! 
any  child  can  understand  that  it  means  '  dip  and  nothing  but 
dip  through  all  Greek  literature,'  and  if  the  archangel  Ga- 
briel dares  to  doubt,  Ave  will  send  him  to  school ;  and  if  what 
we  thus  affirm  be  not  true,  then  the  word  of  God  is ! " 

This  ironism  of  the  theory  lasts  until  some  waxiness  is 
needed  for  its  aid,  and,  then,  the  plastic  fingers  of  poetry 
and  rhetoric  mould  it  with  the  greatest  facility  imaginable 
into  any  needed  form.  Tims,  baptism  by  pouring  (on  Car- 
mel)  becomes  one  of  the  most  intelligible  things  in  nature, 
and  squares,  to  a  hair,  with  "dip  and  nothing  but  dij)." 
But,  when  we  enter  a  plea  for  this  Carmel  baptism  by  pour- 
ing in  behalf  of  ungainly  couches,  or  for  the  person  of  our 
divine  Lord  in  the  house  of  the  Pharisee,  we  are  curtlj'  told, 
that  there  must  be  a  dipping^  the  word  makes  absolute  de- 
mand for  it;  that  baptism  by  pouring  is  no  baptism,  any 
more  than  pouring  is  dipping;  and  if  the  couches  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  were  not  dipped  into  water,  then,  the  inspired 
writer  is  a  "  false  witness ! "  So,  the  theory  arrogantly 
dashes  itself  against  the  throne  of  "the  faithful  and  true 
"Witness."     Which  shall  be  broken  ? 


JOSEPHUS  AND   JOHN'S   BAPTISM.  125 

"We  have,  now,  passed  in  review  the  last  of  the  Jewish 
baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  as  practiced  before, 
and  during,  and  after,  the  ministry  of  John.  The  facts  of 
tliis  Uxst  case  show,  1.  That  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  ex- 
pected to  be  baptized  in  passing  from  the  waj'side  to  the 
dinner  table ;  2.  We  have  shown  the  means  by  which  this 
could  be  done,  through  "the  water  pots"  furnished  for 
guests  "after  the  manner  of  purifying  of  the  Jews;"  3.  We 
have  shown,  the  manner  in  which  these  purifyings  were 
effected,  by  water  poured  upon  the  hands,  purifying  the  en- 
tire person ;  4.  We  have  shown,  that  these  purifyings  were 
called  baptisms;  and  5.  We  have  shown,  that  such  use  of 
words  was  in  harmony  with  the  Classic  usage  of  this  same 
word,  with  that  of  the  related  word  jSdTzrw,  and  with  the 
general  laws  of  language  development.  Matthew  and  Mark 
speak  of  the  process  of  this  baptism.  Luke  speaks  of  the 
changed  condition  resultant  from  this  process.  The  disciples 
were  expected  "to  wash  their  hands"  before  dinner  in  order 
to  their  baptism.  Their  Master  was  expected  "  to  be  bap- 
tized" before  eating,  that  is,  to  go  through  the  process  of 
hand-washing.  The  two  statements  are  complementary  of 
each  other.  As  John  was  born,  and  lived,  and  died,  amidst 
these  daily  Jewish  baptisms,  he  had  the  fullest  opportunity, 
in  this  direction,  for  knowing  the  meaning  and  usage  of 


JOSEPHUS   AND   JOHN'S   BAPTISM. 

"  BaTiTiff/jM  (Tuvtevat  outco  yap  ttjv  ^d-rcffiv  diizodv/.rrjv  ahru)  (pavslaSai^ 
fxij  stt'I  Tivcuv  d/iaprddcuv  -apatrrjcrei  ypiopixxuv^  dXk^  ^cp'  dyvzia  too  aihiiaroq. 
are  5jy  xai  rij'^  4"^X^i'^  duaoavvrj  TtpofAx.ey.aSapixivrjq.^'' 

"  For  Herod  slew  him  (John  the  Baptist),  a  good  man,  ex- 
horting the  Jews  to  cultivate  virtue  and  observing  uprightness 
toward  one  another  and  piety  toward  God,  to  come  for  baj^tiz- 
ing  (purification);  for  thus  the  baptizing  (purification)  would 
appear  acceptable  to  him,  not  using  it  for  the  remission  of  sins, 


126  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

but  for  purity  of  the  body,  provided  that  the  soul  has  been  pre- 
viously purged  by  righteousness." — Josephus,  Jew.  Ant.  xviii, 
6,2. 

"  Quippe  hunc  Herodes  obtruucaverat,  cum  esset  vir  bonus, 
JudaBosque  ad  virtutis  studiura  excitaret,  prascipicns  ut  juste 
quidem  inter  se,  erga  Deum  autem  pie  agentes,  ad  lavacrum 
aecedcrent.  Tunc  enim  demum  acceptum,  Deo  fore  lavacrum 
aiebat,  cum  eo  non  ad  expiationem  criminum  uterentur,  sed  ad 
corporis  munditiem,  ut  mentibus  jam  ante  per  justitiam  expur- 
gatis,  corporis  quoque  adderent  puritatem." — Yalesius,  in  Eu- 
sebiiis,  ii,  116. 

Twofold  BaiMsm  =  1.  Of  the  Soul;   2.  Of  the  Body  {Symbol). 

This  reference  to  John's  baptism  by  Josephus  is  valuable, 
1.  As  showing  the  usage  of  the  Greek  words  under  con- 
sideration by  Jews,  and  2.  As  showing  the  Jewish  under- 
standing of  the  teaching  of  John  and  the  nature  of  his  bap- 
tism, both  of  the  soul  and  of  the  body.  There  is,  I  think, 
internal  evidence  in  the  passage,  that  the  knowledge  of  John 
and  of  his  baptism  was  obtained  by  Josephus  not  from  the 
Scriptures,  but  from  the  current  popular  understanding. 
He  does  not  use  the  same  form  of  word  for  baptism  as  that 
employed  by  John.  Nor  does  he  use  the  same  grammatical 
form  which  John  uses  to  give  detiniteness  to  his  baptism. 
He  does,  however,  describe  with  great  accuracy  the  impres- 
sion as  to  these  things  which  the  preaching  of  John  must 
have  made  upon  the  minds  of  his  hearers. 

The  points  noticeable  in  this  extract  are :  1,  The  use  of 
^aTZTtaixu)  and  (idr.ziGiv  for  baptism.  They  are  not  found  in  Clas- 
sic writers,  nor  are  they  used  by  John.  2.  The  absolute  use 
of  these  words;  there  is  no  explanatory  adjunct  appended. 
Water  is  not  mentioned,  and,  of  course,  no  dipping  into  it. 
3.  The  explanation  of  the  baptisms ;  John's  water  baptism 
(baptism  of  the  body)  is  not  described  as  a  Jewish  baptism. 
That  baptism  was  for  the  removal  of  ceremonial  impurity 
contracted  by  touching  a  dead  body,  &c.  But  the  ground 
of  John's  baptism  of  the  body  is  made  to  rest  on  an  en- 


JOSEPHUS   AND   JOHN's    BAPTISM.  127 

tirely  different  basis,  namely,  to  bring  it  into  harmony  loith 
the  previous  baptism  of  the  soul  by  rigldeousness.  In  such  case, 
the  baptism  of  the  body  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  reflection 
of  the  baptism  of  the  soul.  The  water  which  purities  the 
body  is  a  symbol  of  the  righteousness  which  purities  the 
soul.  4.  He  speaks  of  the  soul  as  baptized.  A  soul  which 
is  thoroughly  purged  from  sin  has  completely  changed  its 
condition.  This  change,  we  are  told,  is  effected  "  by  right- 
eousness"— instrumental  dative.  Analogous  changes  in  the 
condition  of  the  soul.  Classic  writers  say,  is  a  baptism  effected 
by  love,  by  hate,  by  wrath,  &c.,  instrumental  datives.  If  this 
baptism  of  the  soul  is  "6j/  righteousness,"  and  the  baptism 
of  the  body  is  a  s^uiibol  of  tliis,  we  are  shut  up  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  body  is  baptized,  also,  by  water  and  not 
in  water.  Thus  Josephus  is  exhibited  in  the  most  perfect 
harmony  with  all  kindred  baptisms  and  with  the  true  force 
of  the  word.  5.  If  we  had,  merely,  been  informed,  that  the 
soul  was  baptized — thoroughly  purged — by  righteousness,  it 
would  be  language  strictly  modelled  after  the  most  common 
classic  form,  and  is  but  little  lacking  of  the  highest  precision; 
but,  as  heretofore  stated,  the  addition  of  a  verbal  element  to 
the  baptism  gives  absolute  precision.  Thus  Josephus,  on 
another  occasion,  not  content  with  the  mere  statement  "bap- 
tized by  drunkenness,"  gives  the  last  degree  of  definiteuess 
of  which  language  is  capable,  by  adding — "into  insensibility 
and  sleep."  He  does  not,  here,  give  formally  the  verbal 
element  of  baptism,  but  he  does'  substantially  by  declaring, 
that  the  baptism  of  the  body  is  not  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
with  the  evident  teaching,  that  "  the  baptism  of  the  soul  is, 
by  righteousness,  into  the  remission  of  sins." 

And  this  leads  to  the  statement  of  the  last  important  fea- 
ture of  this  extract:  6.  The  orthodoxy  of  its  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism. The  soul  is  to  be  first  baptized — thoroughly  changed 
as  to  its  moral  condition — which  is  not  effected  by  water,  but 
"by  righteousness,"  and,  then,  the  body  is  to  be  baptized  by 
water,  which  does  not  take  away  sin,  but  which  does  bring 
the  body  into  a  conditioyi  of  symbol  purity,  harmonious  with 
the  new  condition  of  the  soul  purified  by  righteousness. 


128  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

An  analogous  twofold  baptism  (of  the  soul  and  of  the  bod}-) 
is  spoken  of  both  by  the  Jew  Philo,  and  by  the  Classic  Plu- 
tarch. Philo  (Jud.  Bap.,  p.  84),  in  general  terms,  says,  "I 
know  some  who  when  they  become  slightly  intoxicated  (in- 
tellect baptized)  before  they  become  thoroughly  drunk  (cor- 
poreally baptized)."  Plutarch  speaks  more  definitely  (C.  B., 
p.  838):  "  Of  those  slightly  intoxicated  only  the  intellect  is 
disturbed;  but  the  body  is  yet  able  to  serve  its  impulses, 
being  not  yet  mersed  (baptized)."  Wine,  then,  effects  a  two- 
fold baptism:  1.  Of  the  intellect,  in  the  earlier  stages  of  in- 
toxication, when  it  can  no  longer,  justly,  perform  its  func- 
tions ;  2.  Of  the  body,  in  the  later  stages  of  intoxication, 
when  it  can  no  longer,  adequately,  perform  its  functions. 
This  twofold  baptism  is  ruinous  to  the  notion  of  "a  dipping," 
unless  poetry  and  rhetoric  can  discover  some  method  by 
which  the  intellect  can  be  dipped  first,  and  the  body  be  dip- 
ped afterward.  It  is  obvious,  that  both  Philo  and  Plutarch 
use  baptism  to  express  a  change  of  condition  in  the  intellect 
and  in  the  body,  eft'ected  by  the  intoxicating  principle  in 
wine  which  obtains  the  ascendencj'  earlier  over  the  intellect 
than  over  the  body.  These  baptisms,  of  course,  are  wholly 
different  in  nature  from  those  of  which  Josephus  speaks; 
but  they  agree  in  their  double'  character  (of  the  spiritual  and 
of  the  physical  man),  and  in  that  the  baptism  of  the  spiritual 
nature  precedes  that  of  the  physical  nature.  The  agency 
inducing  such  baptisms,  the  mode  by  which  it  is  used,  the 
order  of  their  origination,  their  coexistence,  their  continu- 
ance, their  agreements,  and  their  differences,  are  all  worthy 
of  attention. 

This  testimony  of  Josephus  as  to  the  nature  of  John's  bap- 
tism (alas!  that  he  too,  like  all  others,  failed  to  see,  and 
therefore  failed  to  say  a  word  about  that  momentous  ques- 
tion, "How  did  John  use  the  water?")  is  of  great  interej. 
as  an  independent  testimony,  and  of  great  value  because  of 
its  explicit  statement  and  accurate  representation. 

No  one  can  reflect  upon  the  facts :  1.  That  Jewish  Greek 
writings,  speaking  of  baptisms,  were  in  existence  for  two 
centuries  before  John's  ministry.     2.  That  these  baptisms 


JOSEPHUS   AND   JOHN'S   BAPTISM.  129 

were  in  daily  observance  all  through  his  ministry  and  his 
life.  3.  The  perfect  knowledge  of  these  Greek  words  shown 
by  Jewish  Greek  writers  closely  his  contemporaries — with- 
out feeling  that  abundant  facilities  for  attaining  to  a  correct 
knowledge  of  the  true  power  and  varied  usage  of  ^aizzi'^u) 
were  perfectly  accessible  to  John.  And  no  thoughtful  per- 
son will,  I  am  sure,  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  little  importance 
to  have  these  things  very  distinctly  before  us  as  preparatory 
to  the  direct  inquiry — "  What  usage  of  ^anriZu)  is  shown  by 
the  writings  descriptive  of  John's  ministry?" 


NEW  TERMS  EN'TRODUCED. 


BAnTISTHS. 

Matthew  3:1. 

"John  the  Baptist  came  preaching  in  the  wilderness." 
'Iu)dwrj<;  6  (iaTcriazrjq. 

The  Forerunner  of  the  Messiah  is  termed  6  ^annsTij^. 
Although  many  others  baptized,  yet  to  none  is  this  title 
ever  applied  but  to  John.  There  must  be  a  special  reason 
for  this.  The  reason,  no  doubt,  is  embodied,  more  or  less 
distinctly,  in  the  word.  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  this 
word  ?  becomes  a  question  both  of  special  and  general  in- 
terest in  its  bearing  on  our  inquiry.  The  means  for  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  this  question  are  not  so  abundant  as  in  the 
case  of  mauy  other  words.  Classic  Greek  writings  do  not 
furnish,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  a  single  instance  of  its  use. 
Inspired  writings,  in  like  manner,  furnish  no  example  of  the 
use  of  this  word  except  as  applied  to  John.  Patristic  writings 
are  almost  as  destitute  of  the  use  of  this  word  except  in  this 
single  personal  application.  There  is  one  exception,  and,  I 
believe,  but  one  exception  to  this  fact.  That  one  is  remark- 
able and  valuable,  and  will  claim  our  attention  in  seeking 
an  answer  to  this  question. 

Among  the  sources  of  information  available  for  determin- 
ing the  meaning  of  any  word  are,  1.  Etymology.     2.  Usage. 

3.  The  special  features  of  the  passage  in  which  it  occurs. 

4.  The  time  and  circumstances  in  which  it  originates.  From 
some  or  all  of  these  sources  we  may  look  for  valuable  aid  in 
determining  the  meaning  of  the  word  under  consideration. 

1.  Elymology  is  the  natural  source  for  primary  appeal  in 
determining  the  meaning  of  any  word.  It  is  a  source  of  in- 
formation which  can  never  be  wisely  neglected.     But  vvhat- 

(130) 


NEW   TERMS   INTRODUCED.  131 

ever  may  be  the  result  of  such  appeal,  we  can  never,  safely, 
rest  in  it  as  a  finality.  Ilermeneutical  writers  unite  in  say- 
ing, that  words,  under  long  or  hard  usage,  may  have  every 
feature  which  would  identify  them  with  their  etymological 
parentage  entirely  obliterated.  This  is  comparatively  rare. 
But  cases  of  words  whose  meanings  depart  widely  and  es- 
sentially from  that  of  the  etymon  are  quite  common,  and  the 
tracing  back  of  the  dim  waymarks  left  by  the  wanderer 
until,  with  growing  clearness,  they  bring  us  to  the  original 
point  of  departure,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  in 
the  study  of  language. 

We  know,  by  universal  consent  of  grammarians,  that  the 
structure  of  this  word  indicates  a  person  who  is  an  executor 
of  the  demand  of  the  verb  whence  it  is  derived,  unless  some- 
thing has  intervened  to  modify  or  thoroughly  change  that 
meaning. 

Dr.  Carson  says,  "  The  Greek  verb  means  io  dip  and  noth- 
ing but  dip;"  and  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith  says, 
"  Baptizing  is  dipping  and  dipping  is  baptizing ; "  Dr.  Gale 
says,  "The  primary  meaning  is  simply  io  dip;  Christ  by 
commanding  to  baptize  has  commanded  io  dip  only."  The 
venerable  Booth  says,  "  The  primary  sense  of  the  term  is  to 
dip."  Dr.  Cox  says,  "  The  idea  of  dipping  is  in  every  in- 
stance" (C.  B.,  pp.  30-40).  According  to  these  statements 
there  is  no  alternative  for  this  derivative;  it  must  mean  "the 
Dipper." 

But  to  assign  to  ^anriZto  the  same  meaning  as  yJa'Trrcu, 
"  neither  more  nor  less,"  is  a  self-evident  error.  Language 
never,  thus,  repeats  itself.  Facts  make  the  most  absolute 
disproof  of  any  such  meaning.  And,  besides,  Baptist  bap- 
tism is  only  an  e  gratia  dipping.  The  theory  requires  that 
the  object  shall  be  "  so  small  that  it  can  be  lifted  up"  and 
dipped  in  all  its  entirety;  but  this  cannot  be  done  with  men 
and  women  ;  hence,  the  plan  of  walking  into  the  water  "  to 
a  convenient  depth,"  and  dipping  so  much  of  the  body  as 
may  remain  above  the  water.  The  disproof  of  this  meaning 
is  so  overwhelming  that  it  is  abandoned  in  the  Baptist  Quar- 
terly for  January,  1869. 


132  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Professor  A.  N.  Arnold,  D.D.,  of  tlie  Baptist  Theological 
Seminary,  Chicago,  quotes,  with  unreserved  approbation, 
the  statement — "  BaT:ri':aj  has  only  one  meaning.  It  signifies 
literally  and  perpetually  to  ijlunge.''  This  estimable  Professor 
forgets,  that  the  theory  has,  already,  been  on  trial  under  the 
auspices  of  this  "only"  meaning,  and  that  when  placed  in 
the  critical  vice  it  groaned  out  in  agony — "  This  is  very 
unfair;  ijluiige  gives  a  ridiculous  air  to  our  sentiments  and 
practice."  lias  Professor  Arnold  found  a  remedy  for  the 
"ridiculous"  plunging  which  so  troubled  " the  venerable 
Booth?"  Unless  this  is  so,  the  friends  of  the  theory  will 
not  insist,  that  this  derivative  must  mean  the  Plimger.  But 
as  the  theory  is  accustomed  to  seesaw  from  one  "  only  mean- 
ing"'to  another  "only  meaning,"  as  exigencies  demand,  we 
break  up  this  second  etymological  definition  by  the  state- 
ment, that  facts  show  that  Booth  was  right  in  saying,  "  It  is 
ridiculous  to  make  j^h^nge  the  '  always  and  perpetual'  repre- 
sentative of  jSaxTi^^u)." 

Dr.  Conant  says  :  "  BAUTIZEIN :  To  immerse,  immerge^  sub- 
merge, to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  imbathe,  to  whelm."  The  deriva- 
tive, then,  must  be,  "the  Immerser,  the  Imraerger,  the 
Submerger,  the  Dipper,  the  Plunger,  the  Imbather,  the 
Whelmer." 

As  Dr.  Conant  does  not  avow  any  purpose  to  revolutionize 
the  definitions  of  all  preceding  Baptist  writers,  we  must  un- 
derstand this  language  as  expressing  some  definite  act  as 
the  vital  meaning  of  this  word. 

If  Dr.  Conant  will  abandon  this  idea  (as  I  presume  he 
will),  and  fall  back  on  result  in  "immersion,"  then,  it  is  ob- 
vious, that  there  is  made  the  greatest  possible  revolution  in 
the  conception  of  the  word.  If  Baptist  reasoning  in  the  past 
will  answer  for  this  new  basis,  then  that  reasoning  must, 
surely,  have  been  of  the  most  remarkable  character.  Would 
they  claim,  that  their  reasoning  and  interpretation  under 
the  position  that  fiditrcj  had  but  one  meaning,  would  answer 
equally  well  after  the  acknowledgment,  that  they  were  en- 
tirely mistaken;  that  it  had  a  secondary  and  entirely  diverse 
meaning?    But  what,  under  such  change  of  base,  would  be 


NEW   TERMS   INTRODUCED.  133 

the  force  of  this  derivative — "  the  Immerser,"  "  the  Sub- 
merger  ? "  It  points  out  one  who  effects  a  certain  condition 
characterized  by  complete  envelopment,  without  self-limita- 
tion as  to  time  of  continuance  any  more  than  of  the  act  of 
its  accomplishment.  "What  self-limitation  (as  to  time  of  con- 
tinuance in  the  condition  induced)  is  there  in  the  title  "  the 
Submerger,"  "the  Immerser?"  "Would  not  the  making  of 
"the  Submerger"  to  destroy  the  submersion,  at  the  same 
time,  annihilate  the  character  of  "the  Submerger? "  A  man 
who  puts  in  and  takes  out  of  a  liquid  may  be  entitled  a 
Bobber,  a  Dabbler,  a  Dipper,  but  he  cannot  be  called  a  "  Sub- 
merger,"  an  "Immerser."  Limited  continuance  is  involved 
in  the  former  words ;  unlimited  continuance  is  involved  in 
the  latter  words.  But  while  unlimited  continuance  is  de- 
manded to  the  excluding  of  momentary  inness  and  outness, 
there  is  notidemand  for  absolute  permanence  of  continuance. 
This  may  be  or  may  not  be.  It  will  always  be  if  left  to  the 
force  of  the  word,  "the  Submerger,"  "the  Immerser."  A 
foreign  influence  must  intervene  to  destroy  the  condition  in- 
duced. One  and  the  same  party  cannot,  in  the  same  trans- 
action, act  in  the  double  r61e  of  Submerger  and  Emerger. 
It  is  indeed  true  that  a  Submerger  by  hurriedly  putting  on 
the  character  of  an  Emerger  may  save  the  life  of  one  whom 
he  has  submerged ;  but  it  is  only  at  the  expense  of  philo- 
logical suicide.  Timon  played  the  part  of  a  "  Submerger" 
and  murdered  his  victim;  Alcibiades  would  play  the  part 
of  a  "  Submerger"  to  murder  his  victim;  Herod's  assassins 
played  the  part  of  "  Submergers  "  and  murdered  Aristobulus; 
and  as  with  these,  so  with  all  other  Greeks,  they  knew  noth- 
ing of  an  Dmerger  entering  into  the  oflice  of  a  "  Submerger," 
or  being  consistent  with  it.  If,  then,  "Immerser,"  or  "Sub- 
merger"  be  insisted  on  as  the  representative  of  this  deriva- 
tive, etymology  will  never  reach  forth  a  hand  to  rescue  its 
victims  from  perishing  under  the  waters. 

If,  then,  6  ^aTZTKTTijq  be  made  "  the  Dipper,"  etymology 
enters  her  absolute  protest  against  any  such  abuse  of  her 
name.  And  if  it  be  made  "the  Immerser,"  "the  Sub- 
merger,"  Christianity  enters   her   equally  absolute  protest 


134  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

against  putting  men  and  women  nnder  water,  in  her  name, 
by  a  word  which  has  drowned  hosts  of  heathen  Greeks. 

Such  is  the  issue  of  the  et^miology  of  the  theory. 

Our  etymology  connects  this  derivative  with  a  verb  which 
makes  demand,  1.  For  change  of  condition  by  intusposition 
within  an  enveloping  element,  solid,  as  the  human  body; 
semi-solid,  as  a  marsh;  fluid,  as  water,  blood,  &c.  2.  A 
change  of  condition  by  any  controlling  and  assimilating  in- 
fluence without  intusposition.  3.  A  specific  change  of  con- 
dition; (1.)  To  intoxicate;  (2.)  To  purify.  "0  /9a-T£ffTryT,  there- 
fore, might  represent,  a  "  man-hater,"  murderer  of  men  by 
drowning ;  one  who  excels  in  the  exercise  of  a  controlling 
influence,  whether  of  contentious  words  (such  as  Demosthenes 
speaks  of),  or  any  other  kindred  influence;  one  who  is  pre- 
eminent in  making  drunkards ;  or,  one  who  is  remarkable 
as  a  Purifier.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  limited  to  the  latter 
designation. 

Etymology  cannot  be  relied  upon  as  the  sole  and  ultimate 
arbiter  in  determining  the  meaning  of  words.  "  There  are 
many  cases  in  which,  though  the  descent  of  a  word  may  be 
clearly  traced,  we  should  err  egregiously  if  we  were  to  fix  its 
meaning  from  that  of  the  primitive  or  root.  I  know  nothing 
in  which  modern  critics  are  more  frequently  misled  than  in 
their  reasonings  from  etymology."  (Campbell,  Prelim.  Diss.) 

2.  Usage  is  of  higher  authority  than  etymology.  The 
meaning  assigned  to  a  word  by  use  may  or  may  not  be  trace- 
able to  the  root  idea.  "  The  three  words,  xwnuoq  in  Greek, 
jpaganus  in  Latin,  and  villain  in  English,  though  evidently  so 
conformable  in  etymology  tliat  they  all  ought  to  denote  the 
same  thing,  namely,  villager^  have,  for  many  ages,  both  lost 
that  signification,  and  acquired  others  in  which  they  do  not 
in  the  least  resemble  one  another.  If  the  use  in  these  lan- 
guages should  ever  come  to  be  very  little  known,  and  the 
history  of  the  nations  nearly  lost,  we  may  form  a  guess  at 
the  absurdities  in  explaining  those  terms  into  which  men 
would  be  misled  by  etymology."  "In  settling  the  meaning 
of  words  we  must  have  respect  chiefly  to  the  usus  loquendiy 
the  current  sense,  or  established  usage  at  the  time, — to  this 


NEW   TERMS   INTRODUCED.  135 

more  than  to  their  etymology"  (Campbell-Fairbairn).  The 
usage  in  regard  to  the  word  in  question  is,  as  already  stated, 
very  limited.  It  is  not  found  in  Classic  Greek,  nor  is  it  em- 
ployed in  the  New  Testament  in  circumstances  or  in  gram- 
matical relations  which  are  necessarily  determinative  of  the 
meaning.  It  occurs  in  Arrian  (C.  B.,  p.  347)  in  a  compound 
form,  ■Kapa^a-KTiarai,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  John's 
ministry.  In  this  case  the  meaning  is  obscure.  The  ablest 
scholars  cannot  agree  as  to  the  meaning.  The  theme  of  the 
passage  is  character;  and  it  is  highly  probable,  that  the  word 
refers  to  character  as  induced  by  controlling  influence,  and 
not  to  the  performance  of  any  physical  act. 

The  corresponding  word,  ^dr.r-qz-,  derived  from  lidnrco,  is 
still  more  limited  in  its  usage.  It  is  found  only  in  Classic 
writings,  and  there  only  in  a  single  relation,  namely,  as  a 
title  given  to  a  certain  class  of  persons  (C.  B.,  p.  165). 
Scholars  differ  as  to  the  probable  relation  of  this  derivative, 
whether  to  dij^  or  to  dye.  It  is  quite  possible,  that  the  im- 
mediate reference  is  neither  to  dipping  nor  dyeing,  but  to 
the  more  advanced  meaning  of  stained,  polluted,  infamous, 
character.  The  verb  is  freely  used  in  this  aspect :  "  The 
soul  is  imbued  by  the  thoughts" — ^'■imbued  by  integrity" — 
"lest  you  be  imbued  by  Csesarism" — '■'imbued  the  Muse" — 
"adopt  the  character  of  one  imbued"  (C.  B.,  p.  143).  The 
6t  ^d-rat  of  Eupolis,  the  priests  of  Cotytto,  were,  probably, 
neither  "  the  Dippers,"  nor  "  the  Dyers,"  but  "  the  Im- 
buers"  of  their  disciples  with  the  pollutions  entering  into 
the  rites  of  a  deified  courtesan.  There  is,  certainly,  noth- 
ing in  this  related  verb,  or  its  derivative,  which  would  bind 
down  6  ^anriffTTj^  to  the  meaning — "the  Dipper." 

There  is  but  a  single  instance,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  in 
which  this  word  is  ever  applied  to  any  other  person  than 
John,  and  in  that  case  it  is  applied  to  John's  Lord.  The 
passage  is  as  follows:  "  Veniet  ergo  Baptista  Magnus,  sic 
enim  eum  nomino  quomodo  nominavit  Gabriel  dicens,  'Hie 
erit  Magnus'  (Luc.  1  :  32) — Then  shall  come  the  Great 
Baptizer  (for  so  I  call  him,  as  Gabriel  called  him,  saying, 
'  He  shall  be  Great,'  Luke  1 :  32),  he  shall  see  many  stand- 


136  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

ing  before  the  entrance  of  Paradise,  be  will  wave  tbe  sword 
turning  every  way,  aud  will  say  to  tbose  on  tbe  rigbt  band, 
not  having  great  sins, — '  Enter  ye  who  are  of  good  courage, 
who  fear  not  the  fire,'  "  Ambrose,  II,  1227.  Here  the  mean- 
ing— "  Great  Dipper,"  "  Great  Inimerser,"  "  Great  Sab- 
merger,"  "Great  Plunger" — is  out  of  all  question:  1.  Be- 
cause Christ  never  did  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  or  ijliinge  any 
one.  2.  Because  the  act  attributed  to  him,  as  expository  of 
his  title  and  executory  of  bis  functions — "  waving  a  flaming 
sword" — is  inconsistent  with  and  wholly  excludes  any  such 
meaning.  Tbe  passage  is,  in  a  remarkable  degree,  self-ex- 
plaining. The  meaning  which  it  demands,  and  the  only 
meaning  which  it  allows  is,  "^/ie  Great  Purifier.'^  This  inter- 
pretation is  fortified,  beyond  appeal,  by  the  parallel  passage 
in  Origen  (III,  704),  who  in  expounding  the  passages,  "  I 
came  not  to  send  peace  upon  earth  but  a  sword" — "  I  came 
to  send  fire  upon  tbe  earth,"  says:  "Igitur  defert  utrumque 
Salvator,  gladium  et  ignem,  et  baptizat  QUiE  non  protuerunt 
Spiritus  Sancti  purificatione  purgari — Therefore  tbe  Saviour 
brings  both,  sword  and  Jire,  and  baptizes  those  sins  which 
coidd  not  be  purged  by  the  purification  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
This  passage  shuts  up,  in  tbe  njost  absolute  manner,  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  verb  to  the  meaning — to  purify.  We  are 
furnished,  therefore,  with  passages  in  which  both  the  verb 
and  the  derivative  signify  to  purify,  and  the  Purifier.  And  if 
\ve  are  governed  b}^  the  authority  of  Ambrose  and  Origen 
(and  there  is  no  opposing  authority),  6  iSannffTij^  must  mean 
"tbe  Purifier."  Tbe  full  sanction  of  language  development 
to  such  meaning  is  evidenced  by  a  parallel  appropriation. 

Parallel  Appropriation — Merger. 

On  asking  a  classical  scholar.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
Merger  ?  he  gave  an  answer  based  on  tbe  primary  physical 
usage  of  mergo.  The  answer  was  wrong.  It  was,  however, 
the  only  intelligent  answer  which  could  be  given  without 
the  knowledge  of  a  modifying  usage.  With  such  usage  be 
was  unfamiliar.  The  Law  appropriates  "  Merger,"  while 
the  Gospel  appropriates  6  jSanTiaTijq. 


NEW   TERMS   INTRODUCED.  137 

I  will  now  present  in  illustration  of  the  case  in  hand,  the 
feature  which  characterizes  all  the  passages  in  which  this 
word  appears  in  its  absolute  use,  distinguishing,  as  a  title, 
the  bearer  of  it  from  all  others. 

3.  The  phrase  "John  the  Baptist"  ought  to  be  and  was 
an  intelligible  phrase.  Whether  "  John  the  Dipper"  was  an 
intelligible  phrase  or  not,  it  cannot,  etymologically,  represent 
the  Scripture  terms  for  the  unanswerable  reason,  that  the 
root  does  not  mean  to  dip.  "John  the  Immerser,"  "the 
Submerger,"  cannot,  rationally,  be  the  interpreting  phrase, 
for  the  root  requires  that  the  entire  object  shall  be  "im- 
mersed," "  submerged,"  and  gives  no  more  recognition  to 
the  dipping  of  a  part,  than  the  dipping  of  the  whole.  Again, 
and  again,  do  the  Classics  give  us  instances  of  persons  in  the 
water  from  their  ankles  to  their  necks,  not  one  of  whom  is 
said  to  be  baptized  except  with  some  limiting  term.  In 
many  such  cases  where  the  head  has  been  submerged  and 
the  parties  drowned,  they  are  unqualifiedly  pronounced  bap- 
tized. In  some  of  such  cases  death  has  been  escaped  not 
under  favor  of  the  word,  nor  through  any  grace  of  the  bap- 
tizer,  but  in  spite  of  both.  There  is  no  case  of  any  person 
in  the  water,  more  or  less,  and  the  rest  of  the  person  being 
designedly  put  under  the  water  for  a  moment  and  taken  out, 
being  called  a  baptized  person.  There  is  no  evidence,  that 
the  force  of  the  word  would  allow  of  any  such  usage  as  ex- 
plicative of  its  primary  meaning.  And,  according  to  the 
theory,  the  word  has  no  other  meaning.  To  introduce  mo- 
mentariness  into  the  root  of  this  word  is  to  expel  its  only 
rightful  occupant.  To  declare,  that  submerged  men  and 
women  must,  in  a  moment,  be  taken  from  under  the  water 
to  save  life,  is  only  to  declare,  that  they  were  never  put  under 
the  water  by  /Sarrrj^w,  or  that  that  word  has  undergone  a  revo- 
lution as  to  its  meaning.  Let  it  be  proved,  that  John  the 
Baptizer  ever  put  men  and  women  under  the  water  in  answer 
to  the  demand  of  /Jajrrt'Cw,  and  we  will  listen  to  a  plea  for 
saving  their  lives,  and,  also,  for  changing  John's  title. 
Until  such  proof  shall  be  adduced  we  must  abide  in  the 
faith,  that  John,  6  /Sarrnffrij?,  knew  too  well  the  force  of  both 


138  .    JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

tlae  primary  and  secondary  meanings  of  tliis  Greek  word 
ever  to  enter  upon  any  such  task. 

But  what  is  the  ground  or  the  fitness  for  the  title  "John 
the  Dipper,"  "the  Immcrser,"  "the  Submerger?"  "Were 
there  not  a  thousand  others  who  engaged  in  the  acts  of  dip- 
ping, immersing,  submerging?  Is  it  replied,  that  his  action 
was  in  connection  with  a  religious  service  ?  And  does  not 
the  theory  declare,  that  ten  thousand  such  acts  were  every 
day  performed  through  all  Jewry  in  the  fulfilment  of  religious 
service?  Is  it  farther  said,  In  the  one  case  the  parties  dip- 
ped, immersed,  submerged  themselves,  while  in  the  other 
the  action  was  performed  by  somebody  else?  This  may  be 
a  distinction,  but  its  breadth  is  so  nearly  equal  to  that  of  a 
razor's  edge,  that  to  build  a  theor}^  upon  it  will  involve  im- 
minent peril  of  its  being  cut  in  twain.  We  prefer  the  breadth 
and  depth  of  the  title  which  marks  the  Forerunner  out  as 
the  sole  executor  of  a  peculiar  work,  and  proclaims  him  as 
standing  alone  among  his  fellows,  practicing  ceremonial 
purification  of  the  body,  as  emphatically  "the  Purifier,"  the 
proclaimer  of  a  higher  purification  than  that  ceremonialism 
which  characterized  the  religion  of  his  day. 

4.  The  time  and  circumstances  under  which  a  word  origi- 
nates may  render  valuable  aid  in  determining  its  meaning. 

The  time  at  which  6  jSaTzrcffTij^  makes  its  appearance  is  in- 
dubitably certain.  It  springs  out  of  John's  ministry.  It  is 
never  met  with,  previously,  in  either  Classic  or  Jewish 
writings.  At  the  opening  of  his  ministry  it  is  assigned  to 
him  as  a  distinguishing  title,  and  is  so  appropriated  through- 
out that  ministry. 

The  circumstances  which  make  the  soil  in  which  this  word 
is  rooted,  and  out  of  which  it  springs,  are  just  as  well  known. 
John,  from  first  to  last,  was  encompassed  with  religions  rites 
observed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  ceremonial  purity. 
These  rites  had  both  a  divine  and  human  original.  The 
purifying  agencies  were  made  up  of  water,  blood,  ashes,  and 
fire.  The  Greek  word  (iar^zi'^u)  and  the  verbal  iiar.Twiio^  are 
employed  in  connection  with  these  rites,  but  witliout  evi- 
dence, in  a  single  instance,  of  primary  use.   The  unmodified 


NEW  TERMS   INTRODUCED.  139 

primary  force  of  the  word  could  not  be  applied  to  living 
persons.  There  is  absolute  proof,  that  objects  not  enveloped 
by  water,  blood,  ashes,  or  fire,  are  said  to  be  baptized — 
ceremonially  purified.  In  the  midst  of  this  condition  of 
things  John  appears  and  preaches  another  and  higher  puri- 
fication, that  of  the  soul  not  of  the  body,  real  not  ceremonial, 
by  repentance  not  by  water.  In  connection  with  this  puri- 
fication preached  and  as  illustrative  of  its  character,  pure 
water  was  emplo^^ed  as  a  symbol  shadowing  forth  the  puri- 
fication of  the  soul  by  repentance.  A  more  perfect  ground- 
work for  the  title — "  the  Purifier" — could  not  be  laid. 

There  is  but  little  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  persons  who 
first  gave  this  title.  It  certainly  had  no  family  origin.  There 
is  no  evidence  for  a  divine  origin.  It  is  not  usual  for  such 
titles  to  arise  among  disciples.  Quaker,  Methodist,  Puritan, 
Christian,  were  titles  which  originated  with  outsiders.  They 
were  not  intended  to  be  titles  of  honor.  There  is  no  honor 
in  the  title  "  the  Immerser,"  "  the  Submerger;  "  there  may- 
be none  designed  in  "  the  Purifier."  John  could  not  claim 
it  in  any  self-ennobling  sense,  for  he  ever  magnified  "  the 
Coming  One"  as  "the  Great  Baptizer;"  his  disciples  would 
not  give  it  to  him,  for  their  very  discipleship  bound  them  to 
look  for  a  Mightier  One.  The  title  originated,  beyond  rea- 
sonable doubt,  among  Jews  who  were  not  John's  disciples. 
There  is  as  little  just  room  to  doubt,  that  it  originated  before 
John  had  immersed,  submerged,  dipped,  sprinkled,  or  in 
any  other  way  applied  water  to  a  single  individual.  It  must 
have  been  so :  1.  Because  there  was  no  foundation  amid 
Jewish  water  purifyings  for  grounding  a  distiuguishing  title 
on  the  modal  use  of  the  water.  2.  Because  John  necessarily 
preached  his  purification  of  the  soul  before  he  administered 
its  water  symbol.  In  doing  this  he  must,  of  necessity,  con- 
trast the  purification  of  the  soul  and  the  body,  the  real  and 
the  ritual ;  and  must  treat  as  comparatively  worthless  all 
Jewish  ceremonial  purifications. 

All  this  is  clearly  embraced  in  the  account  of  John's 
preaching  which  is  given  by  Josephus.  And  it  is  just  here, 
and  just  for  this  reason,  that  the  title  6  fianuaTijq,  the  Purifier, 


140  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

is  given  to  John  by  Jews  whose  purifications  he  rejects,  and 
calls  them  to  receive  one  which  is  true,  real,  and  spiritual, 
in  their  stead.  This  is  a  simple,  adequate,  and  only  satis- 
factory origin  of  the  title.  And  in  accordance  with  this  John 
is  introduced  to  us  as  6  /SaTTTjorf;?,  before  his  foot  or  hand  has 
touched  the  water  for  the  administration  of  symbol  baptism. 

Whether,  then,  we  look  to  etymology,  which  refuses  to 
expound  this  word  in  a  primary  sense,  or  to  the  time  and 
circumstances  of  its  origin,  which  furnish  such  explicit  tes- 
timony, or  to  the  usage  of  Ambrose  and  Origen,  or  to 
parallel  appropriation,  we  are  shut  up  to  the  conclusion, 
that  John  bears  the  title  6  ^anziarrjq  not  as  "  the  Dipper," 
"  the  Immerser,"  or  "  the  Submerger,"  but  as  the  Purifier; 
yet,  under  no  claim  of  his  own,  but  given  to  him,  probably, 
by  undiscipled  or  discipled  Jews  whose  purifying  rites  he 
rejected,  by  teaching  a  higher  spiritual  purification  de- 
manded by  the  Coming  One. 

This  view  is  sustained  by  Matthies  (Exp.  Bapt,  §  4): 
"Nam  ita  Joannes  nominatur,  quia  novam  ei  dat  significa- 
tionem,  et  quia  maxime  solum  baptismum  prse  ceteris  tractat, 
id  quod  etiam  Bengelius  anuotavit — For  John  is  so  called, 
because  he  gives  a  neiv  meaning  to  the  word,  and  because  he 
treats,  especially,  of  baptism,  beyond  others."  And  Pro- 
fessor Godwin  (Notes  on  Mark  7  :  4),  referring  to  the  pecu- 
liarity of  /9a7rT£(7Ti}?  and  ^dTtuffna,  says,  "  The  nouns  for  '  Bap- 
tizer'  and  'Baptism'  are  not  found  in  Classic  Greek,  and 
seem  to  have  been  formed  from  the  verb  in  its  restricted 
(Jewish  and  Scriptural)  usage." 


Matthew  21  :  25. 
"The  Baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it?  from  heaven  or  of  men?" 
To  (jd-TCfffia  'fcudvvou. 

B  Ann  IMA. 

BAllTIIMA  is  another  derivative  not  found  in  Classic  Greek, 
yet  formed  in  entire  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  Ian- 


NEW   TERMS   INTRODUCED.  141 

giiage.  Jewish  Greek  writings,  antecedent  to  John's  min- 
istry, are,  also,  destitute  of  cases  illustrative  of  the  usage  and 
meaning  of  this  derivative.  We  meet  with  it  first  in  the 
preaching  of  John ;  thence  it  passes  into  the  language  of 
Christianity,  hut  never' enters,  I  believe,  into  merely  secular 
or  physical  relations. 

Substantives,  derived  from  verbs,  ending  in  [xa,  are  used 
to  express  the  effect^  result,  ^product,  state,  induced  by  the  verb. 
In  this  view  all  grammarians  concur.  "  Substantives  with 
the  ending  /la  denote  the  effect  or  result  of  the  transitive  action 
of  the  verb"  {K'dhner).  "ISTouns  formed  from  verbs  to  de- 
note the  effect  or  object  of  the  action,  have  [la  added  to  the  root 
of  the  verb"  [Crosby).  "  The  ending  /za  denotes  the  effect  of 
a  verb"  {Sophocles).  "!N"ouns  ending  in  /^a,  derived  from 
verbs,  express  the  effect  of  the  transitive  notion  of  the  verb  " 
[Jelf).  "  The  most  numerous  formations,  however,  are  those 
in  /j.a  and  <?£-,  the  former  mostly  confined  to  the  'New  Testa- 
ment, yet  always  conformed  to  Greek  analogy,  as  j3d7:Ti(Xfj.a, 
&c.,  mostly  in  the  sense  of  product  or  state"  (Winer). 

It  is,  then,  clear,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  meaning  of 
this  word  in  the  direction  of  an  accomplished  result  or  state. 
Our  field  of  observation  is,  also,  limited  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  writings  which  grow  out  of  them,  as  such  writings  bound 
its  use.  Such  an  inquiry  is  suggestive  of  the  thought — Some 
verbs  do  not  issue  in  producing  by  their  action  an  effect,  re- 
sult, product,  or  state,  which  finds  a  verbal  embodiment. 
Whether  this  is  a  consequence  of  the  nature  of  the  action 
of  the  verb,  or  because  of  failure  in  demand  for  any  such 
embodiment  of  thought,  the  fact  claims  attention.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  verbs  which  do,  pre-eminently,  issue 
in  efiiecting  a  resultant  state  or  condition.  The  course  of 
this  inquiry  has  shown,  that  these  peculiarities  are  illustrated 
in  the  verbs  jddnTw  and  (^aizriZuj.  The  former  verb,  as  lidnrut 
to  dip,  has  no  derivative  in  ixa  expressive  oi  result  or  state  pro- 
duced by  the  action  of  the  verb.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  a  dipping,  a  momentary 
passing  in  and  out  of  a  fiuid,  could  issue  in  a  state  within 
tfeat  fluid.     Such  a  derivative  could  only  express,  1.  A  con- 


142  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

sequent  superficial  wetness,  or,  2.  A  superficial  result  of  any 
kind.  The  English  language  presents  the  same  facts.  We 
have  no  formation  (diption)  to  express  "result  or  state."  The 
verb  is  one  of  modal  action,  feeble  in  power,  and  momentary 
in  continuance,  and  its  derivatives  express  this  action  with 
consequent  peculiarities  of  feeble  and  limited  influence.  The 
case  is  very  diiierent  with  ^dnzio  to  dye.  This  stem  of  the 
verb  has  undergone  a  radical  change  in  throwing  ofi' limita- 
tion in  act  and  time,  and  in  making  demand  for  a  result  or 
condition  characterized  by  color.  In  such  a  verb  we  would 
look  for  a  derivative  expressing  "  the  eflect,  product,  state" 
produced  by  the  action  of  the  verb.  We  are  not  disap- 
pointed ;  paiijxa  declares  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  verb 
in  effecting  a  dj^ed,  colored,  stained  condition. 

Tlie  differences  between  ^dr^ru)  to  dip,  and  /Sarrw  to  dye,  are 
not  more  or  greater,  are  not  so  many  or  so  great,  as  between 
/JctTrrw  to  dip,  and  iSar.rito)  to  mevsc.  The  community  between 
iSdTtzu)  TO  DYE,  and  iSanri'^M  TO  MERSE,  is  extended  and  pro- 
found. No  change  of  nature  would  be  requisite  to  fit  the 
one  to  perform  the  office  of  the  other.  It  is  the  high  sover- 
eignty of  Use,  only,  which  has  limited  the  action  of  the  one 
verb  to  the  production  of  a  colored  condition,  with  its  out- 
growth, and  has  committed  to  the  other  the  broader  field 
of  controlling  condition  with  and  by  envelopment  together 
with  its  outgrowth,  not  specifically  but  generically. 

Since  whatever  form  of  act  may  be  employed  to  meet  the 
behests  of  ^ar.ri'^M  it  does  not  demand  form  of  action,  but 
condition  (1.  Condition  of  envelopment,  2.  Completeness  of 
influential  condition  without  envelopment),  it  follows,  that 
/?d-Tf<7,aa  must  be  expressive  of  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
conditions.  There  is  no  necessity  for  its  being  limited  to 
the  expression  of  physical  condition  or,  indeed,  of  its  refer- 
ring to  such  condition  at  all.  We  have  seen,  that  (idmia  has 
uo  relation  to  the  primary  use  oi'  iSdnrto,  dipjnng;  and  it  may 
be,  that  ^dnrKTixa  has  just  as  little  relation  to  the  primary  use 

of  ISa-ri^u). 

This  clear  possibility  becomes  a  strong  probability  in  view 
of  the  facts :  1.  That  there  is  no  clear  evidence  of  a  physidSil 


NEW  TERMS   INTRODUCED.  143 

^dTzziGiia  being  referred  to  at  any  time  in  the  New  Testament. 
2.  There  is  clear  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  word  when  a 
physical  jSaTZTCff/ia  is  not  referred  to.  3.  It  is  applied  to  living 
persons,  who  must  perish  in  a  physical  jSd-nff/ia  unmodified, 
and  the  theory  repudiates  all  modification.  4.  The  exigen- 
cies of  language  demand  the  disjunction  and  extension  of 
the  conceptions  which  are  involved  in  a  physical  envelop- 
ment. This  is  manifest  from  the  English  use  of  inerge  and 
immerse.  These  words,  having  the  same  original,  occupy 
entirely  difl:erent  spheres  in  our  language.  No  good  writer 
uses  merge  in  physical  relations.  The  import  of  these  words 
in  English  use  is  so  utterly  diverse  that  it  is  impossible  to 
interchange  them.  Try  the  following :  "  It  provides  for 
merging  our  Presbyteries  into  the  Synods."  Was  provision 
made  for  immersing  the  Presbyteries?  "The  States  are 
united,  not  inerged."  Would  the  same  idea  be  expressed  by 
saying,  "  The  States  are  united,  not  immersed?"  "  The  car- 
riage road  merges  into  the  bridle  path."  Is  this  convertible 
into — "The  carriage  road  immerses  into  the  bridle  path?" 
"An  ordinance  to  merge  the  department  of  the  market  houses 
into  that  of  the  city  property,"  would  sound  a  little  odd  if 
converted  into  "an  ordinance  to  immerse"  the  one  into 
another.  On  this  use  is  grounded  the  law  term,  "  a  merger," 
which  metamorphosed  into  "an  immerser"  would,  certainly, 
make  the  court-room  stare.  The  Greek  intellect  needed  all 
these  modifications  of  thought.  They  are  wrapped  up  in 
^anriZoj,  and  were,  thence,  substantially,  evolved  by  the  most 
normal  development  of  its  resources. 

It  is  as  uttei'ly  incongruous  to  substitute  the  primary  use 
of^anriZuj  for  the  secondary,  as  to  substitute  immerse  for  merge, 
or  dip  for  dye.  5.  It  is  admitted,  that  in  the  l^dnztaixa  result- 
ant from  ^aizxl^M.,  there  is  no  self-termination.  And  it  is, 
also,  admitted,  that  if  John's  disciples  were  put  into  a  water 
/3d-T£ff//.a  without  deliverance  (for  which  the  Scriptures  make 
no  shadow  of  provision),  they  must  perish.  To  fill  up  this 
lacuna  of  inspiration  the  theory  ofiers  its  services.  There 
are,  certainly,  formidable  difiiculties  in  the  way  of  giving 
fidmiaiia  a  physical  interpretation. 


144  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  considered  as  related  to  the 
secondary  use  of  /iaTrntw,  from  which  physical  envelopment 
has  been  thrown  oif,  and  therefore  expressive  of  complete- 
ness of  condition  to  be  determined,  definitely,  by  its  adjuncts, 
then  we  can  dispense  with  the  labors  of  the  theory  in  sup- 
plementing the  Scriptures;  for  no  one  ever  put  into  this 
fidTZTiff/xa  will  ever  need  or  desire  to  be  taken  out!  It  will  not 
destroy  life,  but  give  life.  And,  here,  arises  a  possible  ex- 
planation of  John's  use  of  iSdnriffna  (the  state  unlimited  in 
duration  except  through  the  counteraction  of  some  higher 
power)  rather  than  the  fiarzzctT/jio^  or  iSd-riaiv  of  the  Jews, 
which  expressed  the  act  of  the  verb  and  not  the  state  result- 
ant from  the  act.  Jewish  baptizings  were  continually  liable 
to  be  annulled.  The  acts  of  baptizing  (ceremonial  cleansing) 
needed  evermore  to  be  repeated.  There  was  a  fitness,  there- 
fore, in  using  the  class  of  words  which  they  did,  making  the 
act  to  stand  out  prominently ;  while  the  baptism  of  John, 
makinir  demand  for  a  condition  of  the  soul  (a  state  of  com- 
plete  repentance,  never  to  be  abrogated),  could  have  used  no 
better  term  than  one  making  demand  for  a  state  which  had 
no  self-limitation,  and  which  no  power,  as  against  God,  could 
ever  annul.  This  iSdnrcff/j-a  would  outlast  that  of  the  ship  of 
Josephus,  which  has  been  these  eighteen  hundred  years  em- 
bosomed (baptized)  in  the  depths  of  the  Adriatic. 

Having,  now,  met  with  four  words — jSd-rcatv,  ^ar.Ti<Tii6^, 
/3a:rr:(7T55?,  and  ftdnrKJiia — uscd  by  Jewish  writers,  inspired  and 
uninspired,  in  religious  rites,  none  of  which  appear  in  Classic 
Greek,  it  seems  remarkable,  that  we  should  be  called  upon 
to  repudiate  inspiration  as  a  competent  witne^  for  the  mean- 
ing not  only  of  the  words  which  it  uses,  but  of  the  words 
which  it  originates,  and  accept  the  testimony  of  heathen 
writers  as  to  the  meaning  of  words  which  they  never  used 
in  any  relations,  much  less  in  the  observance  of  religious 
rites. 

It  would  seem,  that  if  the  inspired  writers  had  sufiScient 
knowledge  of  Greek  to  construct  these  different  forms  of 
words  to  meet  new  exigencies,  they  had  sufficient  knowledge 
to  indicate,  by  the  usage  of  those  words,  what  were  the  mean- 


WHAT   BAPTISM.  145 

ings  whicli  they  attached  to  them.  We  make  this  remark, 
not  because  of  need  of  any  other  aid  than  that  which  Classic 
usage  and  language  development  fairly  give,  but  because  it 
is  simple  common  sense.  John  had  the  most  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  essential  power  and  large  capabilities  of 
^anriZoj,  and  was  fully  competent  to  wield  them  for  any 
special  service  demanded  by  his  new  ministry. 


WHAT    BAPTISM 


John  1  :  25. 
"What  (baptism),  then,  dost  thou  baptize?" 

Ti  ouv  (3a7tTc^siq. 

The  translation  of  this  passage,  which  gives  to  W  its  usual 
pronominal  force,  aflbrds  a  more  facile  and  harmonious  inter- 
pretation than  that  which  gives  to  it  an  adverbial  character. 

The  translation  "  Why  dost  thou  baptize  ? "  is  grounded, 
mainl}',  in  the  idea,  that  the  Jews  believed  that  the  Messiah 
and  his  adjntors  would  baptize  and  no  others.  The  evidence 
that  the  Jews  held  such  an  opinion  is  rather  inferential  than 
of  direct  statement.  Olshausen  says,  "  The  Pharisees  evi- 
dently considered  baptism  as  nothing  unbecoming  to  the 
Messiah  or  Elias.  But  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  from  this 
passage,  that  the  Jews  believed  that  the  Messiah  or  his  fore- 
runner would  baptize.  At  any  rate  it  could  not  be  regarded 
as  a  prerogative  belonging  onli/  to  the  Messiah  to  baptize  the 
Jews,  because  in  that  case  John  would  not  have  adopted  it." 
Origen  thinks,  that  they  should  not  have  expected  Elias  to 
baptize,  because  he  did  not  baptize  the  sacrifice  and  altar, 
but  committed  that  work  to  others.  But  just  as  certainly  as 
the  Jews  believed  that  the  Messiah  and  Elias  would  baptize, 
just  as  certainly  did  they  believe  that  their  baptism  was  to 
have  a  peculiar  character.  As  Olshausen  further  remarks: 
"  The  words  only  signify  that  the  baptism  of  Israelites,,  by 

10 


146  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

these  individuals,  was  not  inappropriate,  since  they  would 
not  merely — like  ordinary  prophets — strengthen  the  existing 
theocratic  life,  but  would  found  a  new,  higher  constitution." 

When  John  had  denied  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and, 
also  (according  to  their  understanding),  that  he  was  Elias,  or 
that  Prophet,  he  did  make  claim,  in  answer  to  their  farther 
inquiry,  "Who  art  thou?"  that  he  was  a  Messenger  divinely 
appointed  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord.  The  fact  that  in 
the  fulfilment  of  his  office  he  preached  a  baptism  which  was 
incorporated  in  a  ritual  ordinance  was  patent  to  all.  "  Why 
he  baptized"  is  sufficiently  explained  by  his  claim  to  be  a 
divinely  appointed  messenger.  The  baptizing  is  necessarily 
involved  in  his  divinely  appointed  ministry.  No  answer 
could  go  beyond  this.  To  make  the  inquiry  was,  therefore, 
out  of  place.  But  it  being  settled,  that  his  mission  was 
divine,  and  that  baptizing  was  incUided  in  that  mission,  there 
remained  the  question  of  prime  importance,  "  What  baptism 
dost  thou  baptize  ? "  This  would  specifically  determine  the 
character  of  his  ministry.  Nothing  is  more  indefinite  than 
a  baptism;  while  nothing  is  more  definite  than  a  defined 
baptism.  The  theory,  indeed,  does  say,  "All  baptisms  are 
water  dippings/'  and  John's  dipping  must,  of  necessity,  be 
the  same  as  any  other  dipping.  But  this  is  a  doctrine  of 
these  last  days.  The  universal  testimony  of  the  ages  is, — 
"Multa  genera  baptismatum  " — and  the  Jews,  in  particular, 
were  familiar  with  "  liaTZTtdpAnq  oca<fof?oc^."  Notliing,  therefore, 
could  be  more  to  the  purpose  than  the  question — "  What 
baptism  dost  thou  baptize?"     "What  is  its  nature? 

Or,  inasmuch  as  it  is  in  proof,  that  the  Jews  in  religious 
rites  employed  /Jajrrj'Cw  in  the  appropriated  sense  to  purifi/, 
the  phraseology  might  be  modified  while  the  substance  re- 
mains the  same,  thus :  "  "What  (defilement)  dost  thou 
purify?"  Is  it  an  actual  removal  of  ceremonial  defilement, 
or  of  spiritual  defilement?  or,  is  it  only  a  symbol  purifica- 
tion? What  is  its  character?  To  such  inquiry  John's  answer 
is  perfectly  apposite — "  I  baptize  with  water.  My  baptism 
has  no  other  power  than  that  which  belongs  to  simjde  water, 
and  is  therefore  merely  symbol  in  its  character."     In  this 


WHAT   BAPTISM.  147 

language  there  is  no  semblance  of  an  answer  to  the  question, 
"  Whi/  dost  thou  baptize  ?" 

Versio7is. 

Modern  versions,  generally,  translate  the  passage  adverbi- 
ally, but  the  translation  by  Jerome  retains  the  pronoun — 
^^  Quid  ergo  baptizas?"  And  in  the  21  v.  he  translates 
''Quid  ergo?"  And  in  the  22  v.  "Quid  dicis?"  And  in 
the  39  V.  "  Quid  quseritis?" 

There  should,  clearly,  be  the  same  translation  in  these 
four  passages,  of  the  same  chapter,  unless  some  adequate 
and  well-established  reason  can  be  given  for  making  an  ex- 
ception. The  translators,  probably,  felt  a  difficulty  in  con- 
necting "What"  with  "  baptize,"  and  so  framed  another 
relation  for  this  verb.  There  is,  however,  no  just  ground 
for  embarrassment,  as  is  conclusively  shown  by  the  use  of 
the  phrase  /JarrTt^ej^  ^dnrKrixa.  Baptisms  are  of  endless  variety; 
and  this  very  passage  brings  the  fact  into  bold  relief  Origen 
(IV,  252)  takes  this  view  of  the  passage.  In  answer  to  an 
objection  made  by  Heracleon,  that  John's  reply  was  not  ap- 
posite to  the  question  addressed  to  him,  he  uses  this  lan- 
guage :  "But  we  say  that  the  answer  meets  the  very  letter. 

For  to  the  inquiry:  Ti  oov  ^a-riZeic;'^  ri  dlko  k'/priv  ccTzelv^  yj  Ts  TO 
idiuv   7tapa<TT7i->a'.   j3d-zi/t/ia   awiiartf-wrspov   rojy_a:jir^.      ^Eyw^  Y"-Pt   <pT'i'T'v-i^ 

^oKTi^m  Iv  udan.  What  else  was  necessary  to  say,  beyond  the 
showing  that  his  own  baptism  was  corporal  ?  For,  he  says, 
'I  baptize  with  water.'"  And,  to  enforce  this  interpreta- 
tion, he  quotes  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke,  where  the  nature  of  his  baptism,  "  with  water,"  is 
contrasted  with  the  nature  of  Christ's  baptism,  "  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  It  may  be  added,  that  in  quoting  Mark,  as 
well  as  Luke,  he  gives  u8aTi  without  the  preposition,  as  does 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  the  Vulgate  translation.  Origen, 
then,  understands  the  question  as  did  Jerome — "  What  kind 
of  baptism  dost  thou  baptize?"  And,  he  says.  The  answer 
which  expounds  his  baptism  as  that  of  simple  water  affect- 
ing merely  the  body  (a  mere  symbol  baptism),  meets  the 
question  exhaustively.     Chrysostom  (II,  367),  after  quoting 


148  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

the  passage — "  I,  indeed,  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire" — adds, 
^^  AT,hjv6ri  6orn<;  dux  lfiaT:-'lX,s  U'^suiiari — Plainly  he  did  uot  bap- 
tize by  the  Spirit"  (without  the  preposition).  He  then  asks 
the  question  :  "  T).  di  ^ot;v,  'Ev  nvebfiarc  ayiip  y.ai  Ttupt — But  lohat 
is  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire?"  And  he  answers 
his  question  by  referring  to  "  the  cloven  tongues,  like  fire, 
which  appeared  to  the  Apostles  and  sat  upon  each  of  them." 
It  is  very  manifest,  that  Chrysostom  felt  no  embarrassment 
in  using  rt  as  a  pronoun  in  connection  with  baptism.  This 
is  shown,  still  farther,   when  he  asks,  immediatel}^  after, 

"  Uinov  uuv   i,ja7:Ti(7aT() ;   Oure   ru  ^ Iou8ai7.oy^   outs  to   ■^^izTspov^   aXka  to 

'liodvvou — What  baptism  was  he  baptized  with  ?  ISTot  with 
Judaic  baptism,  not  with  our  baptism,  but  with  John's  bap- 
tism." Here  we  have  an  exhibition,  in  part,  of  that  variety 
in  baptism  which  was  in  the  mind  of  the  Jews  when  they 
asked  John,  "  What  baptism,  then,  dost  thou  baptize?" 

Ambrose  (H,  1581),  quoting  John's  language — "  Ego  vos 
aqua  baptizo" — says,  "Aqua  enim  corpus  abluitur,  spiritu 
animse  delicta  mundantur  .  .  .  aliud  fuit  baptisma  pseui- 
tentise,  aliud  gratife  est — For  the  body  is  purified  by  water, 
the  sins  of  the  soul  are  cleansed  by  Spirit  .  .  .  baptism  of  re- 
pentance was  one  kind,  baptism  of  grace  was  another  kind. 

Such  language  sustains,  unmistakably,  the  translation — 
"  What  baptism  dost  thon  baptize  ?"  Matthies  (Baptismatis 
Expositio,  §  4)  takes  the  same  view  of  the  passage.  After 
quoting  Bengel's  judgment,  that  this  question  did  not  relate 
to  the  meaning  of  baptism,  but  to  the  distinguishing  char- 
acter of  that  of  John — "non  nisi  ad  sui  baptismi  essentiam" 
— he  says,  "Cui  sententise  nos  quidem  non  repugnamus  .  .  . 
illis  non  externum  baptizandi  ritum  curse  fuisse^  sed  inter- 
nam  potius  hujus  baptismi  vim — We  do  not  oppose  this 
opinion,  but  think  that  it  may  be  sustained  yet  more 
strongly,  if  we  examine  more  closely  both  the  question  of 
the  Pharisees  and  the  answer  of  John.  But  it  is  evident 
from  the  question  of  the  Pharisees,  that  they  did  iiot  refer 
to  the  outward  rite  of  baptizing,  but  rather  to  the  inner 
power  of  this  baptism,  since  they  do  not  ask  of  John :  '  What 


WHAT   BAPTISM?  149 

is  it  to  baptize,'  or  '  What  is  baptism,'  but  tliej,  rather,  ask, 
'  What,  then,  dost  thou  baptize  ? '  {h<;  n  x.  r.  X. — quo  tandem 
nititur  baptismus  tuus? — into  lohat  dost  thou  baptize — to 
what  end  does  thy  baptism  tend?")  .  .  .  "  If  baptism  was 
well  understood,  then  the  answer,  '  I  baptize  with  water,' 
has  a  proper  thought,  for  the  words  tv  udart  have  great  force, 
and  contain  the  answer,  which  is :  '  aqua  {jyitrgadonis,  i.  e., 
poeniieniice, syinbolam)  met  haptismiesi essentia'' — water  (of  puri- 
fication, i.  e.,  the  symbol  of  repentance)  is  the  essence  of  my 
baptism."  These  statements  are  eminently  satisfactory. 
But  the  true  view  of  this  passage  is  very  clearly  settled  by 

Acts  19  :  3  :    "£;'?  ri  ouv   IjSaTrrlffOrjTe  ]    6i   Sk   el-ov^   Elq  to  Ucjdvvoo 

pdr.Tiffiia — Into  lohat  (baptism),  then,  were  ye  baptized  ?  And 
they  said,  Into  John's  baptism."  This  question  of  Paul  reveals 
the  same  truth  as  the  question  of  the  Pharisees,  to  wit.  Variety 
in  the  nature  of  baptisms.  And  when  a  baptism  is  announced 
we  feel,  that  we  know  nothing  of  its  essence  until  we  receive 
an  answer  to  the  query — rt'eorc;  And  when  persons  tell  us, 
that  they  have  been  baptized,  we  are  left  in  the  dark  as  to 
all  valuable  knowledge,  without  an  answer  to  this  question — 
Etq  ri  ijSa-TLffOTjTs;  As  Paul  knew  well  what  was  the  nature 
of  John's  baptism,  the  answer,  "  We  were  baptized  into 
John's  baptism,"  gave  him  all  the  information  he  desired. 
And  in  like  manner  the  answer  of  John  himself,  that  his 
baptism  was  effected  by  simple  water,  having  no  other  than 
a  symbol  power,  gave  to  the  Pharisees  all  the  information 
they  sought  by  the  inquiry  ri  ouv  ^a-Tlt^zic;',  But  the  question 
of  the  Pharisees,  Ti  /SaTrnt^t?;  and  the  question  of  Paul,  Eir  xL 
[ia-KTr^^i-',  are  by  no  means  identical  in  every  respect.  Had 
Ishmael  been  asked  Ti  [imz-ci'^tK^;  he  would  have  answered, 
^Eyu)  liaTzrilu)  dtvuj — I  baptize  with  wine.  But  had  he  been 
asked,  £/?  t{  ■^a-riUt<; ;  his  reply  would  have  been,  Eiq  dvataOriffiav 
xai  u-vov.  In  the  former  case,  the  general  character  of  the 
baptism  is  revealed  by  the  statement  of  the  instrumental 
means;  in  the  latter  case,  the  most  specific  information  pos- 
sible is  given,  by  stating  the  element  (actual  or  verbal)  into 
tuhich  the  baptism  takes  place.  We  should  here  note  the 
clear  and  all-essential  distinction  between  a  baptism  by  wine 


150  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

(h  o'.'yoj  Hebraistically,  dcvui  Classically)  and  baptism  into  wine 
(e£?  divov).  The  former  baptism  is  by  wine-driuking  issuing 
in  a  baptism  into  a  condition  of  drunhenness  or  stupor;  the 
latter  baptism  is  by  some  unstated  act  into  loine  as  a  physical 
envelopment,  issuing  in  death,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Duke 
of  Clarence  and  his  butt  of  Malmsey  wine ;  and  as  in  the 
case  of  Cupid,  except  his  godship  had  saved  his  life  (C.  B., 
p.  245).  The  confounding  of  such  distinction  (as  does  the 
theory)  is  hermeneutically  monstrous.  In  perfect  parallelism 
(as  to  phraseology  and  twofold  character)  with  this  wine  bap- 
tism, is  water  baptism,  h  udazt  (according  to  the  Hebrews, 
Matthew  and  John ;  udan,  according  to  the  more  Classical 
Mark  and  Luke),  by  water,  as  a  symbol  instrument,  setting 
forth  a  baptism  into — what,  is  not  here  stated,  but  which  we 
shall,  hereafter,  find  most  expressly  mentioned,  and  baptism 
into  WATER,  ek  udwp,  wliich  phraseology  (issuing  in  death  by 
the  simple  force  of  its  terms)  is  no  more  known  to  the 
Scriptures  than  is  torrid  heat  amid  polar  snows. 

When  the  answer  of  John  is  considered  we  must  feel,  that 
there  is  nothing  there  which  meets  the  question  "  T7%  dost 
thou  baptize?"  but  that  it  does,  distinctly,  meet  the  in- 
quiry. What  is  the  character  of  that  baptism  which  thou  dost 
baptize?  John  contents  himself  with  saying  here,  that  his 
baptism  makes  no  claim  to  any  power  to  effect  any  essential 
change  in  the  condition  of  those  who  receive  it  (whether  of 
a  ceremonial  or  of  a  spiritual  character),  but  is  possessed, 
merel}^,  of  that  symbol  character  obviously  belonging  to  pure 
water  used  in  religious  service.  Nothing  could  be  more 
natural  or  necessary  at  the  outset  of  a  ministry  preaching 
the  development  of  a  new  order  of  things,  and  illustrating 
that  preaching  by  a  religious  rite,  tlian  the  inquiry — "What 
is  the  precise  nature  and  value  of  this  rite?" 

If  the  interpretation,  now  given,  of  this  passage  be  correct, 
it  has  an  obviously  important  bearing  upon  our  inquiry.  But 
all  the  materials  furnished  by  the  Scriptures  for  solving  the 
question — "What  is  John's  baptism?" — are  not  found  in 
these  brief  words  as  recorded  by  the  Apostle.  We  will, 
therefore,  take  a  step  onward  from  this  firm  footing  which 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   MIGHTIER   ONE.  151 

has  been  already  secured.  And  this  will  naturally  bring 
us  to  consider  that  baptism  of  Christ  with  which,  as  to  essen- 
tial power,  this  of  John  is  contrasted,  but  with  which  it  is  in 
the  most  intimate  alliance  as  its  forecasted  symbol  shadow. 


BAPTISM   OF   THE   MIGHTIER  ONE. 
WHAT   WAS    IT? 

Matthew  3 :  11. 

"  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I 
am  not  worthy  to  bear :  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire." 

Mabk  1 :  7,  8. 

"  There  cometh  one  mightier  than  I  after  me,  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  1  am  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and  unloose.  He 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Luke  3  :  16. 

"One  mightier  than  I  cometh,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I 
am  not  worthy  to  unloose.    He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
.Ghost  and  with  fire." 

John  1  :  33. 

"  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  re- 
maining on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

^^^AoToc;  Ufid^  ^artriasi  iv  Ilvsu/iaTC  ' Ayiu)  xai  7ru/){'." — 3fatt.  3:11 , 
Luke  3  :  16. 

'■^'AuToq  di  j3a7:rc(Tsi  bfxaq  h  Uveu/jLaTi  "Ayitay — Mark   1  :  8. 

^^OoToq  kfTTiv  6  ^ar^zi'l.wv  Iv  nvsu/iart  '^ Ayiu).^^ — Jollll  1  :  33. 

Im'poriance  of  this  Baptism. 

The  phraseology  of  these  passages  (all  agreeing  in  one) 
contains  elements  which  being  thorouglily  mastered  will 
give  us  partial  possession,  at  least  of  "  the  arx  causce  of  this 


152  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

dispute."  This  being  true,  we  are  called  upon,  iu  an  especial 
manner,  "to  seek  all  aid  in  its  correct  interpretation, assum- 
ing nothing  without  proof,  and  carefully  endeavoring  to  de- 
tect the  cause  of  the  error,  on  whichever  side  it  be."  This 
course  will  require  an  examination  of  the  verbal  elements 
both  separately  and  in  their  mutual  relations. 

We  will  first  examine  the  baptism  and  its  phraseology  as 
interpreted  by  friends  of  the  theory. 

Baptist  Translation  and  Interpretation. 

"He  will  immerse  you  in  holy  spirit  and  fire" — is  the 
translation  by  Dr.  Conant  in  the  quarto  edition  of  the  New 
Version  with  critical  notes.  The  translator  of  John  (same 
edition)  says,  in  a  note  on  1  :  3-3,  "  I  would  greatly  prefer  to 
render  these  words  literally — '  immerseth  iu  Holy  Spirit' — 
without  the  article.  I  do  not  consider  the  izveufxa  ayiov  here 
spoken  of  to  be  the  personal  spirity  contemplated  as  such,  but 
simply  divine  essence,  abstracted  in  the  mind  of  the  writer, 
from  all  ideas  of  personal  attributes  or  relations."  Dr.  Co- 
nant, in  a  note  on  Matt.  3  :  11,  says,  "  'immerse  in  holi/  spirit' 
means,  that  divine  influence  so  often  expressed  by  the  Greek 
words.  These  translators  differ  from  each  other  as  widely 
as  '  divine  essence'  diff'ers  from  '  divine  influence.'  " 

What  is  "  divine  essence  abstracted  from  all  personal  re- 
lations and  attributes,"  and  how  it  furnishes  a  medium  for 
a  dipping  into  it,  or  what  is  abstract  "holy  spirit"  and  its 
meetness  for  a  dipping,  I  confess  my  entire  ignorance.  The 
New  Version  translators  of  Mark  and  Luke  are  content  to 
"immerse  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Thus,  these  four  translators 
give  us  three  essentially  different  elements  for  the  dipping : 
1,  Divine  influence;  2.  Divine  essence;  3.  The  personal 
Holy  Spirit. 

Another  Baptist  writer,  Stovel,  gives  a  fourth  element  in 
which  this  dipping  is  to  take  place,  namely,  "«  holy  spirit." 
To  this,  however,  Dr.  Conant  will  not  listen ;  he  says,  "  It 
is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  usage  and  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament."  If  these  translators  are  so  much  embar- 
rassed to  find  out  the  element  in  which  they  would  make  the 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATION   AND   INTERPRETATION.  153 

Mightier  One  to  dip,  they  might  extend  some  grace  to  those 
who  can  find  none  at  all  in  which  he  performs  such  modal 
act.  None  of  these  translators  have  anything  to  say  about 
"  the  dipping  in  fire^''  whether  it  is  "  influence,"  or  "  es- 
sence," or  actual  fire.  It  is  pleasant  however  to  know,  that 
in  the  final  revision  all  these  experimental  translations  are 
abandoned,  and  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  is  allowed  to 
remain  in  his  relations  to  baptism  as  heretofore  in  the  old- 
fashioned  English  Bible.  It  is  possible  that  after  like  experi- 
ments with  dip,  and  plunge,  and  sink,  there  willbe  a  willing- 
ness to  accept  those  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth. 
At  present,  I  raise  no  question  as  to  the  translation  dxp; 
that  will  come  up  more  fitly  hereafter.  It  is  not  untimely, 
however,  to  call  attention  to  the  most  remarkable  and  un- 
heard of  character  of  a  '-^dipping  in  divine  essence,"  a  dipping 
in  holy  spirit,  a  dipping  in  a  holy  spirit,  or  a  dipping  in  fire 
of  any  kind.  There  is  not  much  risk  in  saying,  that  such 
rhetoric  was  never  heard  of  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the 
theory.  But  it  is  not  merely  the  peculiar  rhetoric  which 
challenges  our  regard.  There  is  an  evident  contradiction 
between  the  theory  and  its  application,  and  John  and  his 
argumentation.  John  announces  the  approach  of  a  Mightier 
One,  and  appeals  for  the  evidence  of  this  transcendent 
mightiness  to  the  wonderful  character  of  his  dipping {!)-,  so 
says  the  theory.  Now,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  ex- 
clusive ability  to  dip  in  one  thing,  rather  than  another  thing, 
may  show  a  greater  comparative  richness  of  resources,  but 
it  fails  to  make  proof  of  an  absolute  personal  power.  A  dip- 
ping into  a  divine  influence  may  be  of  greater  worth  than  a 
dipping  into  pure  water;  but  if  the  dipper  can  do  no  more 
than  DIP  in  divine  influence,  then  his  control  over  divine 
influence  is  of  the  feeblest  possible  character.  Nothing  is 
more  certain,  than  that  a  dipping  into  anything  is  indicative 
of  the  object  dipped  being  brought  in  a  most  trivial  degree 
under  the  influence  of  whatever  it  may  have  been  dipped 
into.  John,  then,  is  made  by  the  theory,  to  argue  for  the 
unapproachable  power  and  glory  of  the  Coming  One,  by  an 
appeal  to  the  fact  that  he  will  accomplish  a  certain  thing  in 


154  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

the  feeblest  possible  manner,  to  wit,  by  a  clipping!  If  the 
friends  of  the  theory  are  disgusted  by  such  bitter  fruits  of  its 
logic,  and  declare  themselves  wearied  beyond  farther  endur- 
ance in  the  attempt  to  carry  such  a  burden  as  "  dip  and  noth- 
ing but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature,"  and  make  "im- 
merse "  their  Hercules  on  whom  they  call  for  help,  no  objec- 
tion will  be  made,  provided,  1.  That  a  frank  confession  be 
made  of  error  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  for  the  past 
hundred  years,  and  that,  on  that  error.  Christians  have  been 
required  to  do  an  act  for  the  doing  of  which  there  is  not  one 
syllable  in  the  word  of  God.  2.  That  this  word  shall  be  ac- 
cepted, for  better  or  worse,  in  those  points  in  which  it  is 
distinguished  from  dip :  (1.)  As  without  limitation  in  the 
form  of  the  act  meeting  its  demand.  (2.)  As  without  limita- 
tion of  time  in  its  accomplished  result.  (3.)  As  without 
limitation  in  the  influence  exerted.  3.  That  there  shall  be 
no  shifting  of  meaning  or  word,  but  a  fair  maintenance  of 
the  position  assumed — "the  same  meaning  in  literal  and 
metaphorical  use"  (Conant).  Nothing  is  more  incontro- 
vertible than  a  boundless  difterence  between  immersion  in 
essence,  in  spirit,  in  a  spirit,  in  the  Spirit,  in  fire,  and  a  dip- 
ping into  these  same  things.  Nothing  is  more  certain,  than 
that  the  former  may  meet  John's  reasoning  when  the  latter 
cannot.  And  nothing  is  more  certain,  than  that  this  difl'er- 
ence  arises  out  of  the  unlimited  time  during  which  the  im- 
mersed object  is  subjected  to  the  influence  of  the  enveloping 
element.  Those  whom  "the  Coming  One"  baptizes  remain 
baptized  forever  and  forever !  I  do  not  say,  that  the  simple 
word  makes  such  a  result  imperative ;  but  I  do  sa}^,  that  its 
essential  nature  accords  with  unlimited  duration,  that  it  will 
not  of  itself  terminate  that  duration,  and,  as  none  can  undo 
what  God  has  done,  the  baptism  of  the  Mightier  One  shall, 
in  fact,  never  end. 

Determining  Points  of  the  Interiiretation. 

The  theory  claims,  that  the  interpretation  of  this  passage 
is  controlled,  1.  By  the  essential  meaning  of  the  preposition 
iv,  and  2.  By  the  construction,  claimed  to  exist,  in  ^aizTiZm  iv. 


CLASSICAL   USE   OF  'Ev.  155 

On  the  first  of  these  points  it  is  said:  "  The  radical  mean- 
ing of  b  is  in,  reding  within  a  place.  2.  The  meaning,  loith, 
hy,  is  rare.  3.  To  attribute  such  meaning  to  the  preposition 
here  is  unwarranted  and  an  abuse  of  an  uncommon  mean- 
ing." On  the  second  point  it  is  affirmed:  "This  [in)  is 
the  only  sense  in  which  ev  can  be  used  in  connection  with 
/JajTTuw  "  (Conant). 

The  radical  meaning  attributed  to  iv  is  accepted  without 
reserve.  It  is  also,  freely  admitted,  that  the  meaning  with^ 
by,  while  existing  and  universally  acknowledged  in  Classical 
Greek,  is,  still,  comparatively  rare.  But  it  is  denied  that 
this  rare  usage  obtains  in  Hellenistic  Greek.  And  if  it  be 
not  rare  there,  but  on  the  contrary  found  on  almost  every 
page,  then,  to  attribute  such  meaning  to  it,  in  this  class  of 
writings,  is  not  "  doing  violence  to  a  common  use."  If  there 
be  a  marked  difference  in  the  frequency  with  which  this 
preposition  is  used  instrumentally  in  these  two  classes  of 
writings,  then,  it  is  important  that  the  fact  should  be  estab- 
lished, so  as  to  eliminate  from  the  mind  all  suspicion  of  a 
resort  to  an  extreme  meaning  in  order  to  meet  a  controversial 
exigency. 

The  position  taken  as  to  the  force  of  ^anri'^u)  iv  will  be  met 
by  showing  that  the  relation  of  these  words  is  misapprehended. 

Classical  Use  of  'Ev. 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  cite  passages  illustrative  of  the 
primary  meaning  of  iv.  But  it  may  be  well  to  call  to  mind 
the  fact  that  the  within ness  belonging  to  this  preposition  has 
no  limitation  of  time,  and  that,  in  certain  circumstances,  in- 
fluence over  the  object  by  the  investing  material,  as  well  as 
position,  must  be  a  necessary  result.  This  is  important  to 
notice  as  aiding  to  interpret,  in  certain  cases,  the  secondary 
use  of  this  preposition.  In  the  passage — "  I  am  a  good 
helper  of  the  labors  iv  eipyji'rj,"  Xen.  Memorab.  11,  1,  32,  the 
preposition  may  be  regarded  as  indicating  the  labors  as  done 
within  the  yeriod  of  time  through  which  peace  lasts,  or  done  in 
that  condition  of  things  characterized  by  peace,  and  therefore 
within  and  under  the  influence  of  peace. 


156  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

In  Soph.  Phil.,  102,  "  Why  should  you  take  me  away 
kv  doXu),^'  if  the  preposition  here  should  be  supposed  to  indi- 
cate a  state  or  condition  within  which  the  party  is,  still  we 
cannot  rest  in  the  conception  of  withinness,  we  must  proceed 
a  step  farther,  to  the  influence  exerted  by  such  a  condition. 
The  leading  away  is  in,  under,  through  the  infiuence  0/ deception. 
This  development  shows  us  how  natural  is  the  transition 
from  inness  to  instrumentality.  And  when  influence  of  a 
very  absolute  and  penetrative  character  is  designed  to  be  ex- 
pressed, there  is  a  fltness  in  the  suggestive  use  of  this  prepo- 
sition. And,  as  influence  and  agency  are  inseparable,  a 
usage  may  find  development  in  which  agency  or  instrumen- 
tality is  brought  into  the  foreground,  if,  indeed,  it  does  not 
occupy  the  ground  alone. 

A  single  example  (see  Harrison,  On  <jrreek  Prepositions, 
p.  251)  will  illustrate  the  entire  class  of  cases  in  which  Iv 
is  used  in  an  instrumental  sense.  It  is  taken  from  Soph. 
Electr.,  1128,  "  I  neither  washed  him  (for  the  burial)  with 
my  loving  hands — h  <piXy^Gi  xspaiv."  Here,  again,  iv  with  its 
case  does  not  express,  properly  speaking,  the  instrument 
with  which  the  bathing  of  the  dead  body  is  performed,  but 
the  manner  and  conditions  of  the  service.  But  while  it  is 
contended  that,  in  such  examples,  the  proper  force  of  h  is 
almost  always  discernible,  if  not  in  every  case,  it  is  not  in- 
consistent with  this  view  to  admit  that,  in  cases  wdiere  the 
obvious  application  and  use  of  the  object  with  which  iv  is 
joined  suggests  the  idea  of  the  instrument,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  example  last  cited,  h  and  the  ablative  (locativus)  may 
have  come  to  be  well  nigh  equivalent  to  the  expression  of 

the    instrument.      Although    iv    (piX-^si   ^tpaXv    kourpolq    ixdaix-riaa 

means  no  more,  strictly  speaking,  than  that  the  washing  was 
done  with  the  water,  or,  it  may  be,  with  the  body  "  in  the 
hands,"  that  is,  that,  in  a  general  way,  the  washing  was  con- 
ducted in  the  hands ;  yet,  as  it  is  obvious  that  the  employ- 
ment of  the  hands  in  such  case  is  instrumental,  it  is  possible 
that  to  the  Greek  mind  h  /£/)(r:V  may  have  come  to  convey 
directly  the  notion  of  the  instrument. 

As  there  is  an  obvious  difliculty  in  connecting  the  radical 


HELLENISTIC   USE   OF  ^Ev.  157 

meaning  of  iv  wifh  the  act  of  washing  (how  could  the  act  of 
washing  a  dead  body  be  "within  the  hands?  "),  would  it  not 
be  better  to  make  the  preposition  expository  of  the  condition 
of  iyibt  "I,"  working  by  the  hands,  is  with  great  truth 
^Hn  the  hands;"  and,  as  the  work  is  under  the  promptings 
of  love,  is  "  in  loving  hands."  It  is  not  the  washing,  nor  the 
dead  body,  that  is  "in  the  loving  hands,"  but  the  washer. 
"Love"  is  the  influence  which  prompts,  and  "hands"  the 
instruments  employed;  and  both  belong  to  "  I."    So,  Thucyd. 

VII,  11,    "  Ye   know   sv   akXmq   TzoXkaiq   iniffToXale;,   in  =  IvUJl,  by, 

many  other  letters." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  cases  of  this  usage.  But  it 
was  important  to  have  distinctly  before  us  the  fact  that  a 
secondary  use  of  iv  in  the  Classics  is  unquestioned,  and,  also, 
to  glance  at  the  rationale  of  that  use. 

Hellenistic  Use  of  "Ev. 

There  are  few,  if  any,  who  question  the  more  frequent  use 
of  h  in  an  instrumental  sense  by  Hellenistic  writers  in  com- 
parison with  native  Greeks.  But  it  is  desirable  that  the 
evidence  on  this  point  should  be  presented  with  sufficient 
fulness  to  silence  the  charge  of  "a  controversial  resort  to  an 
uncommon  meaning  to  ward  off  otherwise  unanswerable 
truth." 

The  poverty  of  the  Hebrew  language  in  respect  to  parti- 
cles, prepositions,  conjunctions,  and  adverbs,  also,  as  to  the 
inflections  of  nouns,  pronouns,  and  verbs,  is  in  marked  con- 
trast with  the  richness  of  the  Greek.  Hence  arises  a  neces- 
sity for  a  more  varied  application  of  the  same  word  in  the 
former  language  than  in  the  latter.  This  fact  finds  develop- 
ment, especially,  in  translations  from  the  Hebrew,  by  Jews, 
into  Greek,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Septuagint.  But  it  has, 
also,  marked  exemplification  in  the  original  compositions  of 
Jews,  in  Greek,  as  in  the  case  of  books  of  the  Apocrypha 
and  the  New  Testament. 

Dr.  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen  (Four  Gospels,  II,  20),  after 
passing  an  exceedingly  harsh  judgment  on  the  translators 
of  our  English  Bible,  because  of  the  translation  of  ^v  by  with 


158  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

instead  of  m,  adds,  "But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  on  the 
preposition  iv,  which,  answering  to  the  Hebrew  2,  may  de- 
note ivlth  as  well  as  in,  did  not  the  whole  phraseology  concur 
in  evincing  the  same  thing."  The  validity  of  the  reasons 
for  his  judgment  will  be  considered  hereafter;  at  present  we 
have  to  do  simply  with  the  usage  of  this  preposition.  Having 
found  fault  with  our  translators  for  using  unth  instead  of  m, 
and  lauded  Popish  translators  for  "  their  greater  veneration 
for  the  Vulgate"  as  shown  by  using  in  instead  of  with,  he 
condemns  that  same  Vulgate  (I,  388)  for  xaxo!^rjXca,  vicious 
affectation,  "  in  using  the  preposition  in  where  (Rom.  1  :  4) 
the  idiom  of  the  Latin  and  the  sense  of  the  expression 
required  cit77i." 

Whatever  may  be  the  value  of  Dr.  Campbell's  judgment 
as  to  the  translation  in  either  of  these  passages,  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  he  accepts  loith  as  a  translation  of  h  as  freely  as  he 
does  that  of  in.  Father  Simon,  also,  who  is  quoted  (I,  378) 
as  objecting  to  the  translation  by  Erasmus  of  Iv  Sumiist  (Rom. 
1  :  4),  cum  potentia,  and  defending  that  of  the  Vulgate  in 
virtute,  says,  "  Although  the  Greek  particle  kv  signifies  in 
the  stj'le  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  Avhich  is  con- 
formable to  that  of  the  LXX,  in  and  cum,  it  had  been  better 
to  translate,  as  it  is  in  the  Vulgate,  in  virtute  or  in  potentia, 
and  to  write  on  the  margin  that  in  also  signifies  cum  ;  because 
there  is  but  one  preposition  which  answers  to  them  both  in 
the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic  language,  with  which  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament  often  agrees,  especially  in  this  sort  of 
prepositions."  Thus  while  Protestant  and  Romanist  criticize 
the  form  of  translation  in  particular  cases,  they  unite  in  the 
doctrine  that  this  preposition  has  a  usage  which  is  rooted  in 
the  Jewish  intellect  and  language  rather  than  that  of  the 
Greek. 

The  use  of  this  preposition  conies,  also,  under  the  remark 
of  Winer  (p.  36):  "A  predilection  for  prepositions  where 
the  Greeks  employ  cases  alone  is  especially  noticeable." 
The  latter  construction  implies  more  abstraction;  the  former 
gives  greater  explicitness. 

It  is,  also,  important  to  remember  that  both  iv  and  £/?  have 


SEPTUAGINT   USE   OF  'Ev.  159 

an  extended  usage  in  the  Scriptures  growing  out  of  its  doc- 
trines. Revealed  religion  is  a  spiritual  religion.  It  makes 
its  demands  on  the  innermost  being  of  man.  It  requires  the 
most  intimate  soul  relations  with  the  Deity,  with  the  re- 
deeming Saviour,  and  with  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying 
Spirit.  To  express  these  relations,  and  others  growing  out 
of  them,  these  prepositions  are  abundantly  used  in  applica- 
tions which  find  no,  or  but  imperfect,  parallel  in  Classic 
Greek. 

Professor  Ellicott  (Preface  to  Galatians)  justly  remarks: 
"  'Ev  is  a  difficult  preposition  in  the  ISTew  Testament.  But 
in  the  holy  Scriptures  every  peculiar  expression,  even  at  the 
risk  of  losing  an  idiomatic  turn,  must  be  retained.  Many 
M^ords,  especially  the  prepositions,  have  a  positive  dogmatical 
and  theological  significance,  and  to  qualify  them  by  a  popular 
turn  or  dilute  them  by  a  paraphrase,  is  dangerous  in  the  ex- 
treme." As  this  usage  of  these  prepositions  applies  to  per- 
sons and  to  things  not  physical,  it  follows,  that  the  primary 
meanings  must,  of  necessity,  receive  modification.  Most 
commonly  there  is  a  suggestion  of  profound  influence  which 
is  so  naturally  associated  with  inness  of  position. 

That  there  is  a  lawless  or  loose  use  of  these  prepositions 
by  the  sacred  writers  is  an  idea  which  should  receive  no 
tolerance.  Many  writers  and  lexicographers  seem  to  imagine 
that  "  Ek,  as  it  happens,  may  be  into,  in,  concerning,  loith, 
against,  before,  by,  in  order  to,  among,  at,  toiuards,  or  it  may 
stand  without  ang  definite  meaning — as  a  mere  expletive — 
and  had  better  be  wanted.  So  also  with  iv"  (Fairbairn, 
p.  51). 

Sepiuagiiii. 

A  few  examples  from  the  Septuagint,  illustrative  of  the 
use  of  ^v,  will  answer  our  purpose. 

"Whom  thou  hast  led  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  h 

iff)(ui    iisydkTj,   xai   Iv   tuj   ^pa'/iovi  aou  rio    u^'tjAoi  "    (Exodus    32  :  11). 

The  Vulgate  translates — "in  fortitudine  magna  et  in  manu 
robusta."  But  no  one  would  think  of  interpreting  Iv  or  in 
as  having  its  mere  primary  meaning.     It  has,  undoubtedly, 


160  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

an  iDstrumental  signification,  as  is  attributed  to  it  in  our 
translation  from  the  Hebrew — '''■loith  great  power  and  with  a 
mighty  hand."  And  without  a  preposition — "  Defended  by 
th}'  hand"  (Wisd.  of  SoL  19  :  8).  It  is  always  of  interest, 
and  sometimes  of  vital  importance,  to  trace  any  particular 
usage  back  to  the  primary  meaning,  and  sometimes,  still 
more  important  to  determine  the  true  logical  relation  of  the 
preposition.  In  endeavoring  to  do  this,  we  must  remember 
the  statement  of  Winer  (p.  386) — "  The  figurative  use  of  iv 
is  extremely  diversified;"  and,  also,  that  of  Harrison  (p.  246) 
— "The  Latin  in  and  the  Greek  h  are  not  confined  to  mark- 
ing the  relative  position  of  '  within  '  with  regard  to  space  and 
time  merel}',  but  have  this  oflice  with  reference  to  any  con- 
dition or  set  of  circumstances  that  may  invest  a  person  or 
action."  And  from  withiuness,  under  such  circumstances, 
comes  necessarily  the  suggestion  of  the  full  influence  belong- 
ing to  the  specified  condition.  Professor  Harrison  adds : 
"  If  we  say  in  Greek  kv  dpyrj  sTva:,  '  to  be  in  a  state  of  anger,' 
the  proper  force  of  the  preposition  is  no  more  difficult  to  see 
than  in  the  proposition  Iv  zfj  v/j(T(u  hzeXeurriaev,  '  he  died  in  the 
island.' "  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  primary  idea  of  the 
preposition  stands  out  distinctly  in  both  these  cases,  and  yet 
the  force  of  the  preposition,  by  reason  of  its  relations,  diflers 
immensely  in  the  one  case  and  the  other.  In  the  latter  case, 
its  force  is  exhausted  by  pointing  out  simple  locality;  in  the 
former  position,  it  is  used  merely  for  the  sake  of  developing 
the  influence  which  invests  that  position.  To  declare  a  man 
to  be  "in  a  state  of  anger"  is  not  to  give  him  any  local 
position  within  anger.  The  phraseology  is  borrowed  from 
physics,  where  investiture  brings  the  fullest  influence  over  the 
invested  object.  To  say,  "A  man  is  in  the  fire,"  is  to  make 
declaration  that  he  is  under  the  influence  of  fire,  which  is  a 
necessary  consequence  of  his  position.  And  we  employ  this 
same  form  of  expression  when  we  know,  and  when  every  one 
else  knows,  that  withinness  is  impossible,  but  where  we  wish 
to  express  the  full  influence  of  the  term  associated  with  the 
preposition.  While,  therefore,  we  recognize  a  distant  rela- 
tionship between  Iv  dpyrj  and  iv  vrj^ai,  there  is  one  much  closer 


SEPTUAGINT   USE   OF  'Ev.  161 

with  h  Tzopc,  and  without  this  intermediate  link  in  which  in- 
fluence from  position  is  developed,  it  would  be  impossible 
to  show  the  fitness  of  associating  iv  with  opyjj.  While  loith- 
inness  in  iv  v-^ao)  is  everything  and  influence  is  nothing;  on 
the  other  hand  irrftuence  in  iv  dpyrj  is  everj'thing  and  within- 
ness  is  nothing.  But  in  iv  r.upi  both  wi thinness  and  influence 
meet  together  and  measure  each  other. 

This  is  illustrated  by  a  case  subsequently  (p.  254)  men- 
tioned by  Professor  Harrison — "  'Ev  6niv  wc  Oeui  xdiisOa,  '  we 
depend  on  you  as  on  a  god,'  would  literally  mean,  '  we  lie, 
or  are  placed  in  you  as  in  a  god,'  that  is,  '  in  your  power.'  " 
We  see,  at  a  glance,  that  there  is  no  opportunity  to  apply 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  preposition  in  its  present  re- 
lations; but  we  can  follow  back  its  tracks  until  we  find  it 
in  relations  where  withinness  brings  helpless  dependence, 
whether  it  be  "in  prison,"  "in  chains,"  or  "in  a  lion's 
jaws,"  and,  then,  we  can  expound  iv  vp.lv  xeiptOa  as  express- 
ing a  state  of  complete  dependence,  and  feel  that  the  phrase- 
ology, without  any  possible  inness,  is  admirably  adapted  to 
this  end. 

In  like  manner  we  interpret  iv  layb'i^  iv  ^pay^iovi ;  we  do  not 
look  for  any  withinness  in  these  relations,  but  we  find  it 
elsewhere,  in  other  relations  causative  of  influence ;  when, 
therefore,  we  meet  with  phraseology  which  represents  the 
Lord  as  being  "m  great  power"  and  "m  an  uplifted  arm," 
we  know  that  iv  has  lost  its  primary  meaning,  in  fact,  and 
expends  its  strength  in  suggesting  circumstances  in  which  it 
once  appeared  in  true  character  and  gave  opportunity  for 
the  development  of  the  full  influence  of  its  surroundings. 
In  the  present  case,  shorn  of  its  primary  power,  it  suggests 
the  almightiness  of  Him  who  is  "m  the  great  power  and  the 
uplifted  arm." 

This  interpretation  only  shows  the  absolute  fitness  of  the 
translation  which  makes  the  preposition  instrumental.  Je- 
hovah did  "in"  =  wiih^  hy^  great  power  lead  his  covenant 
people. 

"  Then  shall  he  speak  unto  them  iv  dpyrj  durou,  xat  iv  rw  Ou/kL 
abrov."  (Psalm' 2  :  5.)     I  refer  to  this  passage,  especiallj^,  to 

11 


162  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

notice  the  relation  of  the  preposition.  It  is  not  the  action 
of  the  verb  that  is  done  ^v  6py^,  but  it  is  the  Lord  who  is  de- 
scribed as  being  "in  wrath,"  and  his  speech  goes  forth  from 
hira  in  this  state,  and  hence  lias  all  its  fearful  power.  Com- 
pare Numbers  16 :  46,  "  Wrath  is  gone  out  from  the  Lord." 
Deut.  29 :  28,  "And  the  Lord  rooted  them  out  of  their  land, 

i'^  OojJM^  y.ai  opyrj^  y.ai  Tzapn^uapM  nsydJ.uj.''      Isaiah  54  :  8,    "  iv   Oup.id} 

fuxpu),  I  turned  away  my  face  from  thee,  xai  ^v  IXisi  aituviu) 

Uerjffaj  ffe."    Habakkuk  3:2,"  h  opyfi  iXiouq  fr^r^trOrjffYj."     In  all  of 

these  passages  the  preposition  refers  to  the  state  or  condition 
of  Jehovah,  and  not  to  the  sphere  within  which  the  action  of 
the  verb  is  executed,  as  outside  of  the  Deity. 

Instrumental  means  are  very  clearly  exhibited  in  Deut. 
4  :  34,  "Ilath  God  assayed  to  go  and  take  him  a  nation  from 
the  midst  of  another  nation,  h  -eipaaij.<ii^  xai  iv  <jrjpidot<;,  y.ai  h 

ripoMi,  y.ai  h  -KoXiiiui,  y.ai   h  X^'-P'-   '^■po-'^c-'^i  '^a'  '"-'  j^paxiovi    oi^irjXw^  y.ai  iv 

vpdimat  ptydhnq"  The  Vulgatc  translates — per  tentationes, 
&c.  So,  Jeremiah  34  :  8 ;  51  :  12,  13,  r.KToovrai  Iv  pofiipaia  y.ai 
h  h.pM.  It  is  clear  that  in  all  such  cases  (and  they  are  multi- 
tudinous) the  preposition  must  be  translated  instrumentally. 
The  connection  between  this  meaning,  in  such  cases,  and 
withinness  may  or  may  not  be  traceable.  In  III  Kings 
19  :  11,  12,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  was  not  h  t<l  mtupan^  h  t<l 
GUffffeiffiid),  ^v  Tw  r.op\  =  did  not  so  reveal  himself; — but  h  tt] 
^ruj'^Tj,  in,  b]j,  the  still  small  voice;"  so,  the  Lord  was  Iv 

7zeipa(T/j.(I>,  h  /rrjfisioie;,  Iv  ripam,  &C.  (Dcut.  4  :  34);    that  is,  he    did 

reveal  himself  m,  6y,  temptations,  signs,  wonders,  &c.  As  a 
strong  garrison  within  a  fortification  makes  it  an  agency 
capable  of  resistance,  and  as  powder  and  ball  in  a  cannon 
makes  it  an  instrument  of  destruction,  so  the  Lord  verbally 
represented  as  "z'n  signs,  wonders,  tempest,  earthquake, 
famine,  sword,"  makes  them  the  agencies  through  which  he 
works.  And  under  such  circumstances  the  proper  transla- 
tion of  iv  is  loith,  by. 

Apocrypha. 

"Nebuchadnezzar  bound  him  loiih  a  brazen  chain — h 
yah.titp  j£<7/iw."  (Esdras  1 :  40.)   Here  the  modification  of  literal 


SEPTUAGINT   USE   OF  'Ev.  163 

"witliiimess,  and  its  transition  to  express  instrumentality,  is 
obvious.  One  who  is  bound  in  a  chain  occupies  a  position 
of  very  imperfect  withinness.  His  wrists  or  his  ankles  may 
be  in  fetters,  and  the  consequence  is  that  he  is  within  their 
influence,  under  their  control,  bound  by  them.  By  a  slight 
extension  of  this  conception  all  physical  withinness  is  elimi- 
nated. Thus  in  v.  53,  "  They  slew  the  young  men  with  the 
sword — h  pofj-faia."  The  interpretation  of  iv  must  proceed 
either  on  the  idea  that  the  slayer  is  "m  the  sword,"  thus 
communicating  to  it  power  to  kill,  or  the  slain  are  within 
the  range  of  the  sword,  and  so  come  under  its  power  to  kill. 
In  either  case  withinness  has  disappeared  and  instrumentality 
has  taken  its  place.  So,  also,  in  v.  55,  "  They  burned  the 
towers  of  Jerusalem  with  fire,  Iv  nupl."  What  is  put  within 
fire  comes  under  its  consuming  influence,  and  therefore, 
what  comes  under  its  consuming  influence,  although  not  by 
being  within  it,  is  still  expressed  by  iv  nup].  And,  so,  in  v. 
57  of  the  same  chapter — "  Unto  the  fulfilment  of  the  word 
of  the  Lord  bj/  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  iv  ffTo/xan."  And  in 
this  same  book  it  is  said,  "  They  assisted  him  iviih  gold  and 
ivith  silver,  kv  XP^'^^^  ''«'  ^^  apyupiu).''  If  we  pass  beyond  a  di- 
rect and  absolute  instrumentality  in  our  interpretation,  we 
must,  I  think,  place  "they"  within  "the  gold  and  silver"  as 
the  source  whence  was  derived  the  ability  to  render  assist- 
ance. They  assisted  by  means  of  gold  and  silver.  Their 
power  to  assist  by  gold  and  silver  is  represented  as  arising 
from,  being  in,  gold  and  silver,  having  it  thus  within  their 
control.  The  being  within  a  thing  is  used  to  denote  that  the 
invested  object  is  under  the  influence  of  the  investiture,  or 
that  he  is  clothed  with  the  power  which  belongs  to  it  and 
can  sway  it  to  all  its  ends.  A  man  who  is  "  rolling  in  wealth  " 
is  invested  with  all  the  power  which  belongs  to  wealth. 
"Because  they  were  in  enmity  to  them"  (^i^  ^Opa)  (5  :  50). 
To  be  in  enmity  is  to  be  under  the  influence  of  enmity,  to 
act  in  its  spirit,  and  by  its  promptings. 

"Which  thou  gavest  by  the  hand  of  thy  servants  the 
prophets"  [b  •/.^ip^')  (8:82).  However  facile  it  may  be  to 
trace  this  phraseology  back  to  a  literal  "m  hand,"  still,  it 


164  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

appears  before  us  in  this  passnge  in  a  simple  instrumental 
character. 

"Sennacherib  slew  many  m  his  wrath"  (h  Ou/jm)  (Tobit 
1  :  18).  Sennacherib  was  in  a  wrathful  condition,  therefore 
under  its  influence,  and  so  slew  many. 

"  I  ate  ray  bread  in  grief"  {iv  Xu-tj)  (2  :  5).  It  is  not  the 
"  bread"  which  is  in  grief,  nor  is  it  the  "  eating,"  but  it  is 
"I;"  I  in,  under  the  influence  of,  grief  ate  my  bread. 

"He  brought  forth  the  bags  in  the  seals"  {iv  acppayifri) 
(9  :  5).  The  bags,  surely,  were  not  within  the  seals.  But 
they  were  in  that  condition  which  is  efiected  by  sealing. 
They  were  in  a  sealed  condition,  under  the  influence  of  the 
seals  =  "  in  the  seals." 

"  Jerusalem  shall  be  built  with  sapphires  and  emeralds, 
and  her  walls  with  precious  stones  (datives  without  preposi- 
tions), and  the  towers  and  the  battlements  with  pure  gold 
{iv  xp^ffiw).  And  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  shall  be  paved 
loith  {h)  beryl,  and  carbuncle,  and  stone  of  Ophir  (13  :  16, 17). 

"And  Nebuchadnezzar  marched  imih  {iv)  his  power 
against  King  Arphaxad."  (Judith  1 :  13.)  The  marching  was 
not  within  his  power,  but  he  being  "m  his  power"  marched. 
He  was  in — invested  with — all  the  power  of  a  great  army. 
"And  he  took  Arphaxad  and  pierced  him  luith  (iv)  his  darts" 
(v.  15).  An  explanation  of  the  use  of  iv,  in  such  cases,  must 
place  it  in  relation  with  Nebuchadnezzar.  These  "darts" 
were  a  part  of  "  the  power"  in  which  he  went  forth,  and  he 
was  "  in  the  darts,"  and  all  other  agencies,  giving  them  di- 
rection on  their  mission  of  death.  The  archer  was  in  the 
arrow  bij  which  he  pierced  Philip's  eye.  "  I  will  go  forth  in 
{iv)  my  wrath,  and  I  will  cover  the  whole  face  of  the  earth 
ivith  {iv)  the  feet  of  my  power."  "  I  will  do  these  things  ivith 
{iv)  my  hand"  (v.  12).  "To  cover  the  whole  face  of  the 
earth  iviih  {iv)  chariots,  and  horsemen,  and  chosen  footmen" 
(v.  19).  It  was  not  the  act  of  "going  forth"  which  was 
within  wrath,  but  Nebuchadnezzar  being  "m  wrath"  went 
forth  under  the  influence  of  it  to  fulfil  its  promptings.  So, 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  "m  his  hand"  as  that  by  which  he 
carried  out  his  will.     "  I,  in  my  hand,  will  do  these  things." 


USAGE  OF  'Ei>   IN  THE  APOCRYPHA.         165 

In  the  same  way  it  might  be  said,  "I,  in  Holofernes"  (my 
representative,  leader  of  my  armies,  executor  of  my  will), 
"will  do  these  things."  "  The  whole  earth"  is  not  iviihin 
"  the  chariots,  horsemen,  and  feet  of  the  infantry,"  but  it  is 
covered  by  them  as  effectually  as  if  it  were  within  them,  and 
therefore  sameness  of  result,  although  by  a  different  process, 
is  expressed  by  h.  "  Their  mountains  shall  be  drunken  luith 
their  blood"  {h  oLfxan)  (6:4).  These  mountains  are  not  in 
blood  really  or  imaginatively,  but  if  they  were,  simple  inness 
of  position  would  not  make  them  drunk.  Drunkenness  is 
not  an  effect  of  position,  but  of  influence;  the  preposition, 
therefore,  cannot  have  a  local  force.  The  mountains  were 
to  be  made  drunk  by  blood,  not  in  blood.  "They  shall  be 
consumed  by  famine"  [h  h/iu))  (7:14).  "  They  gave  them 
drink  by  measure"  (tV  fxiTpui)  (v.  21).  The  drinking  was  not 
"  in  a  measure,"  nor  was  the  giving  "  m  a  measure,"  but 
the  water  was  measured ;  it  was  given  by  measure,  and  they 
drank  by  measure,  "  G-od  hath  sold  us  into  their  hands  to 
be  thrown  down  before  them  by  (h)  thirst  and  great  destruc- 
tion" (v.  25).  "  The  Lord  will  visit  Israel  by  (eV)  my  hand" 
(8  :  33).  The  visiting  is  not  to  be  done  within  Judith's  hand, 
but,  "  the  Lord  in  her  hand"  =:  working  through  her  hand, 
giving  power  to  her  hand,  will  visit  Israel  in  bringing  deliv- 
erance "  6^  her  hand."  "  Do  thou  throw  down  their  strength 
by  («y)-thy  power"  (9  :  8).  The  preposition  here  has  its  rela- 
tion to  "thou"  and  not  to  "throw  down."  The  throwing 
down  is  not  to  be  within  "power,"  but  the  Lord  being  m, 
possessed  of,  controlling,  almighty  power,  is  besought  to  ex- 
ercise it  by  throwing  down  the  otherwise  resistless  strength 
of  the  Assyrian.  "Break  down  their  majesty  by  (iv)  the  hand 
of  a  woman"  (9  :  10).  The  Lord  was  to  be  m  (make  use  of 
as  an  instrument)  a  woman's  hand.  And  that  hand,  by 
reason  of  its  investiture  with  power  from  on  high,  was  to  do 
this  great  work.  "  Most  gladly,  therefore,  will  I  glory  in 
my  infirmities  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me." 
So,  "Until  the  Lord  in  [by,  h)  my  hand  do  the  things  which 
he  hath  purposed"  (12:4).  The  Lord  is  the  worker,  the 
instrument  is  Judith's  hand.     "  She  smote  twice  upon  his 


166  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

neck  in  (sv,  lu'dh)  her  strength"  (13  :  8).  All  of  Judith  was 
in  those  blows,  therefore,  she  smote  by  th^i.  So  we  say, 
"Throw  all  your  strength  (or  throw  yourself)  into  the  blow." 
"The  Lord  smote  him  in  [by,  sv)  the  hand  of  a  woman" 
(13  :  15).  The  action  of  the  verb,  the  smiting,  was  not 
within  the  woman's  hand,  but  the  Lord  was.  It  is  of  the 
iirst  importance  to  apprehend  clearly  the  relations  of  this 
preposition.  "And  Judith  said,  '  Praise  my  God  with  (tV) 
timbrels,  sing  unto  my  Lord  with  {Iv)  cymbals'"  (16  :  1). 
" Assur  came  luith  [h)  ten  thousands  of  his  power"  (v.  4). 
"  He  said  that  he  would  destroy  my  young  men  with  [iv)  the 
sword"  (v.  5).  "The  Almighty  Lord  hath  disappointed 
them  by  {Iv)  the  hand  of  a  woman  "  (v.  6).  "  Judith  weak- 
ened him  by  [h)  the  beauty  of  her  countenance"  (v.  7). 
"She  anointed  her  face  with  (jV)  ointment"  (v.  8).  "  0, 
Lord,  thou  art  great  and  glorious,  wonderful  in  {by,  tv) 
strength"  (v.  13). 

"And  every  man  of  Israel  cried  unto  God  in  {with,  h) 
great  earnestness,  and  humbled  their  souls  in  {with,  h)  great 
earnestness"  (4 :  9).  The^  relation  of  iv  is  not  with  the  crying 
and  the  humbling  as  pointing  out  a  space  or  sphere  within 
which  these  acts  were  done.  Such  interpretation  would 
eviscerate  the  statement  of  all  its  power.  It  would  picture 
shadows  going  through  a  dumb  show  instead  of  men  moved 
to  strong  crjnng  and  deepest  prostration  by  profound  emotion 
of  soul.  The  preposition  is  related  to  the  men  of  Israel  and 
points  out  the  condition  in  which  they  are.  They  are  in  a 
condition  of  "great  earnestness,"  and,  by  the  influence  of 
this  condition,  they  are  constrained  to  cry  out  and  humble 
their  souls  before  God.  In  such  relations  by  can  no  more  be 
separated  from  "in"  than  shadow  can  be  separated  from 
substance,  or  effect  from  cause.  If  I  am  in  fire,  I  am  burned 
by  fire.  If  I  am  in  water,  I  am  drowned  by  water.  If  I  am 
in  pain,  I  suffer  by  pain.  Thus,  this  preposition  comes  to 
represent  agency  both  where  iuness  can,  and  where  it  cannot 
be  traced. 


VARYING   POWER   OF  ^Ev,  167 

The  same  Usage. 

The  results  of  an  examination  of  all  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha  are  before  me,  but  it  is  unnecessary  to  give  them 
in  detail.  The  same  usage  prevails  through  every  book. 
That  Iv  is  associated  with  a  great  variety  of  conceptions  and 
is  not  confined  to  that  of  a  naked  inness,  is  most  obvious  on 
any  extended  examination.  The  great  variety  of  physical 
circumstances  in  which  this  particle  is  used,  lays  the  founda- 
tion for  the  secondary  use  in  which  inness  disappears  or  ap- 
pears only  as  suggestive  of  condition  affected  by  influence. 

There  is  a  real  specific  difference  in  the  value  of  this  word 
in  such  phrases  as  the  following:  Standing  in  the  field,  buried 
IN  the  field;  sailing  in  the  sea,  sunk  in  the  sea;  loalking  in  the 
flower-garden,  struggling  in  the  brier-bush;  in  the  morass 
unable  to  get  out  with  clean  boots;  in  the  morass  up  to  the 
eyes,  unable  to  get  out  with  life.  But  it  is  not  merely  a 
modification  of  a  common  generic  idea  which  takes  place. 
Its  use  in  certain  relations  is  suggestive  of  concomitants  and 
influences  which  overshadow  the  local  thought.  Joseph  in 
a  pit  is  suggestive  of  abandonment,  incapability  of  self-deliv- 
erance, hunger,  and  death ;  Joseph  in  a  i^alace  is  suggestive 
of  friends,  power,  abundance,  and  honor.  A  son  in  a  father's 
bouse  with  its  inmates,  is  suggestive  of  the  sweetest  influ- 
ences of  earth ;  a  son  in  the  banquet  hall  with  the  riotous, 
in  the  field  with  swine,  is  suggestive  of  guilt,  shame,  ruin. 
To  be  assailed  by  a  pack  of  wolves  in  an  open  plain,  is  sug- 
gestive of  their  ferocity  and  of  our  destruction ;  but  to  be 
thus  assailed  in  a  strongly-built  and  well-equipped  structure, 
is  only  suggestive  of  their  impotence  and  of  our  safety.  In 
such  cases  the  inness  is  real,  but  subordinate;  the  mind  does 
not  rest  in  it,  but  proceeds  by  its  aid  to  v^rhat  lies  beyond. 
Thus  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  use  of  this  particle  where 
there  is  no  inness,  in  fact,  but  where  its  presence  is  sugges- 
tive of  influences  appropriate  to  and  springing  out  of  its  ad- 
juncts. When  we  say,  in  honor,  in  shame;  in  wealth,  in 
poverty;  in  joy,  in  sorrow;  in  strength,  in  weakness;  in 
sin,  in  holiness ;  the  particle  ceases  to  express  position  and 


168  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

is  used  to  give  development  to  the  characteristics  distinctive 
of  its  adjuncts. 

Sometimes  even  this  office  of  suggestion  is  laid  aside  or 
doubtfully  revealed,  as  in,  "Many  fell  by  [iv)  the  edge  of  the 
sword"  (Wisd.  of  Sirach,  28  :  18).  "  The  furnace  proves  the 
edge  by  color"  [iv  ^acprj)  (34:  20).  And  this  direct  expression 
of  instrumentality  is  farther  shown  by  the  use  or  the  omis- 
sion of  the  preposition  in  narrating  the  same  transaction. 
Thus,  "  Shut  the  door  and  seal  it  with  thy  seal"  (rw  daxruXiut 
goo)  (Bel  and  Dragon,  1 :  11),  is  fulfilled  in  v.  14  in  these 
terms,  "  They  shut  the  door  and  sealed  it  with  the  seal  of  the 
king  [h  rm  SaxroXiu)  jiautXituq").  It  would  be  embarrassing  to 
make  proof,  that  the  sealing  which  was  effected  under  the 
approbation  of  h^  differed  one  whit  from  the  sealing  com- 
manded in  which  h  makes  no  appearance ;  or  reversely,  to 
show,  that  if  h  had  appeared  in  the  command,  and  had  made 
no  appearance  in  the  execution  of  the  command,  that  there 
would,  thereby,  be  any  evidence  that  the  one  differed  from 
the  other  by  jot  or  tittle.  And  it  should  be  observed,  that 
we  do  not  unify  these  differing  forms  by  taking  inness  out 
of  the  form  in  which  Iv  appears  and  introducing  it  into  the 
form  with  the  nude  dative, but  the  reverse;  we  preserve  the 
instrumental  dative  and  give  to  kv  an  instrumental  power. 
The  same  must  be  done  with  the  uSan  and  h  udau  of  John's 
baptism. 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  New  Testament  exhibits  the  same  varied  usasfe  of  iv 
with  that  which  stands  out  in  such  bold  relief  in  the  Apocry- 
pha and  Scptuagint. 

The  evidence  adduced  will  be  addressed  mainly  to  two 
points :  1.  To  show  that  the  instrumental  use  is  not  rare ; 
2.  To  show  the  suggestive  use  of  this  particle  based  on  the 
primary  idea,  but  without  its  existence  in  fact,  or  in  con- 
ception. 

The  Instrumental  Use  of  'Ev  is  not  rare. 

To  avoid  all  question  as  to  the  fitness  of  the  passages 


'Ev  AS   USED   IN    MATTHEW.  169 

quoted  to  be  regarded  as  proof  passages,  I  will  quote  tlie 
translations  as  given  in  the  Baptist  Bible.  One  of  the  rules 
of  that  new  version  is,  that  "  The  exact  meaning  of  the  in- 
spired text  must  be  translated  by  corresponding  words  with 
the  least  possible  obscurity  or  indefiniteness." 

In  following  this  guidance  we  shall  be  very  sure  to  lose 
all  those  cases  bearing  on  baptism  in  which  this  particle 
appears,  as  well  as  every  other  case  in  which  a  local  mean- 
ing can  be  assigned  to  it,  and,  in  general,  we  may  be  sure 
that  we  will  get  the  fewest  possible  cases  in  which  instru- 
mentality appears.  But  we  may  find  that  when  such  pas- 
sages are  brought  down  to  their  minimum,  they  are  still 
sufficiently  numerous  for  our  purpose. 

Matthew. 

5  :  13.   Wherewith  (Iv,  by  what)  shall  it  be  salted. 

5 :  34.  Swear  not  at  all,  neither  by  {Iv)  heaven,  for  it  is  God's 

throne. 

5:35.  "  nor  6?/ (^1/)  the  earth,  for  it  is  his  footstool. 

5  :  36.  "  nor  by  (iv)  thy  head,  because  thou  canst 

not  make  one  hair  white  or  black. 

7  :    2.   With  (^kv)  what  measure  ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  to 
you. 

7  :    6.  Lest  they  tramj)le  them  luith  (^tv)  their  feet. 

9  :  34.  He  casts  out  devils  through  (Iv)  Beelzebub,  the  Prince  of 
the  devils. 
12  :  24.  Casts  out  devils  through  (iv)  Beelzebub,  Prince  of  the  devils. 
12  :  27.  If  I  through  (iv)  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils. 
12  :  27.  Through  (iv)  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out? 
12  :  28.  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  through  (iv)  the  Spirit  of  God. 
14  :  13.  He  departed  thence  by  (iv)  ship. 

17  :  21.  This  kind  goeth  not  out  but  by  (iv)  prayer  and  fasting. 
20  :  15.  To  do  what  I  will  with  (iv)  my  own. 
21 :  23.  By  (iv)  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things? 
21 :  24.  By  (iv)  what  authority  I  do  these  things. 
21 :  27.  Neither  tell  I  you  by  (iv)  what  authority  I  do  these  things. 
22  :  15.  How  they  might  ensnare  him  with  (iv)  his  talk. 
22  :  37.   With  (iv)  all  thy  heart,  with  (iv)  all  thy  soul,  with  (iv)  all 

thy  might. 
22  :  43.  How,  then,  does  David  by  (iv)  the  Spirit  call  him  Lord  ? 


170  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

23  :  16.  Whosoever  shall  swear  by  (iv)  the  temple. 

23  :  16.  "Whosoever  shall  swear  by  (iv)  the  gold  of  the  temple. 

23 :  18.  Whosoever  shall  swear  by  {iv)  the  altar — sweareth  by 

(i>)  the  gift. 
23  :  20.  Swear  by  (^v)  the  altar,  sweareth  by  (Iv)  it,  and  by  Qv) 

all  things  thereon. 
23  :  21.  Swear  by  (Iv)  the  temple,  sweai'eth  by  (iv)  it,  and  by  (iv) 

him  that  dwclleth  therein. 
23  :  22.  Swear  by  (^v)  heaven,  sweareth  by  (iv)  the  throne  of  God 

and  by  (iv)  him  that  sitteth  thereon. 

25  :  16.  Traded  loith  (.^v)  them. 

26  :  52.  They  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  (iw)  the  sword. 

Thus,  ill  the  first  book  of  the  New  Testament,  we  find, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist  Bible,  that  this 
preposition  is  used  in  a  sense  not  local  thirty-seven  times, 
more  than  once  for  every  chapter,  and  in  one  case  thirteen 
times  in  seven  consecutive  verses.  In  a  volume  (Theodosia, 
an  elaborate  argument  for  dipping  baptism),  published  by 
tbe  Baptist  Publication  Society,  it  is  affirmed  that  there  are 
but  forty  passages  in  the  'New  Testament  in  which  iv  must 
be  translated  otherwise  than  by  in.  If  this  affirmation  be 
true,  then,  either  these  forty  passages  (less  three)  are  singu- 
larly crowded  into  this  gospel  by  Matthew,  or  the  Baptist 
translators  have  failed  to  give  us — "  The  exact  meaning  of 
the  inspired  text."  Let  us  look  into  the  last  book  of  the 
New  Testament  to  see  whether  we  can  find  an}^,  or  all,  of 
the  three  missing  passages  necessary  to  complete  the  "  forty." 

Kevelation. 

In  examining  the  use  of  iv  in  this  last  book  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  confine  ourselves,  as  in  the  first  book,  to  the 
translations  of  the  Baptist  Bible. 

2 :  IG.  And  will  fight  against  them  with  (h)  the  sword  of  my 

mouth. 
2  :  23.  And  I  will  kill  her  children  ivith  (iv)  death. 
2  :  27.  And  he  shall  rule  them  with  (iv)  a  rod  of  iron. 
5 :    2.  A  strong  angel  proclaiming  with  {iv,  Cod.  Sin.)  a  loud 

voice. 


'Ev  AS   USED   IN   REVELATION.  171 

5  :    9,  And  hast  redeemed  us  by  {Iv)  thy  blood. 

6 :    8.  To  kill  with  Qv)  sword  and  with  (h)  hunger  and  with 
(ii>)  death. 

9  :  19.  And  with  (cv)  them  they  do  hurt. 

10  :    6.  And  sware'by  (^v)  him  that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever. 

11 :    6.  To  smite  the  earth  with  (iv,  Cod.  Sin.)  all  plagues. 

12  :    5.  To  rule  all  nations  with  (cv)  a  rod  of  iron. 

13  :  10.  He  that  killeth  with  (iv)  the  sword,  must  be  killed  with 

(iv)  the  sword. 

14  :    2.  The  voice  of  harpers  harping  loith  Qv)  their  harps. 
14  :    7.  Saying  with  (cv)  a  loud  voice. 

14  :    9.  The  third  angel  followed  them  saying  with  (^v)  a  loud 

voice. 
14  :  10.  He  shall  be  tormented  with  (i>)  fire  and  brimstone. 

16  :    8.  Power  was  given  unto  him  to  scorch  men  with  (^iv)  fire. 

17  :  16.  And  shall  burn  her  with  (iv)  fire. 

18  :    2.  He  cried  mightily  ivith  (cv)  a  strong  voice. 

18 :  16.  Decked  with  (iv)  gold,  and  (with)  precious  stones,  and 
(with)  pearls. 

19  :    2.  Which  did  corrupt  the  earth  with  (iv)  her  fornication. 
19  :  15.  Asharp  sword  that  icith  (iv)  ithe  should  smite  the  nations. 
19  :  15.  And  he  shall  rule  them  with  Qv)  a  rod  of  iron. 

19  :  20.  AVrought  mii-acles,  with  (^v)  which  he  deceived  them. 
19  :  20.  A  lake  of  fire  burning  with  (Iv)  brimstone. 
19  :  21.  The  remnant  were  slain  with  (iv)  the  sword. 
21 :  24.  And  the  nations  will  walk  by  {iv)  its  light. 

Thus,  this  last  book  of  the  'New  Testament,  like  the  first, 
furnishes  us,  uuder  the  rule — "  The  exact  meaning  of  the 
inspired  text" — with  thirty  or  more  cases  in  which  the 
radical  idea  of  inness  is  rejected.  What,  now,  becomes  of 
the  statement,  "  There  are  but  forty  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  iv  must  be  translated  otherwise  than  by 
in  ? "  Is  not  the  Baptist  Publication  Society  strangely  at 
v^ar  with  the  Baptist  Bible  Translation  Society  ? 

In  the  JSTew  Testament  there  are  thirty-seven  books.  If 
we  average  the  usage  of  this  preposition  in  these  two  books 
throughout  the  others,  we  will  have  not  less  than  nine  hun- 
dred cases  in  w^hich  inness  makes  no  appearance.  But  if  this 
should  be  thought  too  large  a  number,  because  of  the  iu- 


172  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

equality  of  size  in  the  books,  reduce  it  any  proper  degree, 
and  the  cases  must  still  be  computed  by  hundreds.  And  in 
view  of  such  a  result  what  becomes  of  the  assertion  that  such 
use  of  iv  is  so  rare  that  to  claim  it  as  possible,  or  probable, 
in  a  doubtful  case,  is  without  warrant  ? 

If  it  should  be  farther  said:  "These  books  are  more  char- 
acterized by  a  Hebraistic  style  than  some  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  hence  the  instrumental  use  of  ev  is  more 
abounding;"  we  will  not  question  the  position,  but  accept 
with  pleasure  the  confession,  that  New  Testament  writers 
less  familiar  with  the  Greek  employed  this  preposition  more 
frequently  (in  accordance  with  their  native  tongue)  in  an  in- 
strumental sense. 

In  confirmation  of  this  we  find  that  the  Baptist  Bible 
translates  h  throughout  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  in- 
strumentally,  with  only  one-half  the  frequency  with  which 
it  translates  the  same  preposition  in  the  gospels  of  Matthew 
and  John.  And,  still  farther,  we  have  the  noticeable  fact 
that  while  the  more  Hebraistic  Matthew  and  John  use  the 
preposition  with  water  {iv  udau)  in  speaking  of  baptism,  it  is 
rejected  [udart)  by  the  less  Hebraistic  Mark  and  Luke. 

An  examination  has  been  made  of  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  with  the  purpose  of  presenting  them  in  de- 
tail ;  but  it  is  unnecessary ;  the  result  is  fairly  exhibited  in 
the  statements  now  made.  And  with  these  facts  before  us, 
it  is  plainly  unwarrantable  to  affirm,  that  "  The  use  of  h  in 
the  New  Testament  in  an  instrumental  sense  is  rare,"  or, 
that  "  The  proffer  of  such  sense,  in  any  questionable  case,  is 
without  just  warrant." 

But  these  facts  carry  us  still  farther.  They  give  unques- 
tionable authority  for  claiming,  that  where,  in  parallel  pas- 
sages, the  more  Hebraistic  writers  employ  the  preposition, 
and  the  more  Greekly  writers  use  the  simple  dative,  the 
preposition  is  used  with  an  instrumental  meaning. 

3Iore  specific  Usage. 

We  will,  now,  proceed  to  consider  the  usage  of  this  prepo- 
sition in  relations  bearing  more  specifically  upon  the  phrase- 


SEPTUAGINT.  173 

ology  of  the  passage  under  consideration.  Is  there  any  rea- 
son why  kv  in  the  phrase  h  Uvtofxan  'Ayio),  and  in  related 
phraseology,  should  carry  with  it  and  he  limited  to  the  idea 
of  inness  ?  In  determining  the  value  of  the  preposition  in 
this  relation,  as  in  its  general  usage,  we  shall  place  under 
contribution  the  learning  and  fidelity  of  the  translators  of 
the  Baptist  Bible. 

Septuagint. 

We  will  first  take  a  few  exemplifications  of  this  usage  from 
the  Septuagint.  Micah  3:8:  "I  am  filled  with  strength 
(iv  IIvso[j.ari  Kupiou)  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  Vulgate: 
Spiritus  Domini.  English  translation  of  the  Hebrew:  "I 
am  full  of  power  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  Zechariah  4:6: 
"  N'ot  {iv)  by  great  power,  nor  {iv)  by  strength,  but  {iv  TIvtoixaTi) 
by  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord."  Vulgate:  "Non  in  exercitu, 
nee  in  robore,  sed  in  Spiritu  meo."  Douay:  "N'ot  with  an 
army,  nor  by  might,  but  by  my  Spirit."  English:  "ITot  by 
might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit."  Nehemiah  9 :  30 : 
"And  testified  against  them  {iv  IlvsOfian  aoo^  iv  x^^pi)  by  thy 
Spirit,  by  the  hand  of  thy  prophets."  Vulgate:  "In  Spiritu 
tuo,  per  manum  prophetarum  tuorum."  Douay:  ^^  By  thy 
Spirit,  by  the  hand  of  thy  prophets."  English:  '•'■By  thy 
Spirit  in  thy  prophets."  Isaiah  4:4:  "  When  the  Lord 
{ixTzlovti)  shall  wash  out  the  filth  of  the  sous  and  daughters 
of  Zion  and  shall  purge  away  the  blood  from  their  midst 
{i\>  TivtviiaTi)  by  a  Spirit  of  judgment  and  a  Spirit  of  burning." 
Vulgate:  "In  Spiritu  judicii  et  Spiritu  ardoris."  Douay: 
"  By  the  Spirit  of  judgment  and  by  the  Spirit  of  burning." 
So,  the  English  Bible.  So,  also,  in  this  and  in  the  preceding 
passages,  the  German,  French,  Spanish,  and  Italian  transla- 
tions all  express  agency  by  preposition  or  case  to  which 
inness  does  not  belong. 

New  Testament. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  adduce  all  the  passages  in  the 
l!Tew  Testament  where  this  form  appears.  Our  purpose  only 
requires  that  such  and  so  many  passages  shall  be  brought 


174  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

forward  as  will  show  that  this  phrase  is  used  where  the 
thought  does  not  rest  in  a  condition  of  inness,  but  is  em- 
ployed  where  such  condition  either  finds  no  place,  or  can 
only  be  appealed  to  as  a  remote  element  to  aid  in  expound- 
ing a  new  usage. 

Mark  12  :  36  :  "  For  David  himself  said  (Iv  tw  U'^tbimn  rut 
'J^£w)  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Vulgate:  "  In  Spiritu  sancto." 
Douay:  '•'- By  the  Holy  Ghost."  Bcqytist  (Quarto,  Greek 
text):  "David  himself  said  hy  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and  refers 
to  "  chap.  1 :  8,  note,"  where,  singularly  enough,  we  read — 
"  Iv  UvsviiaTt  "Ayiu).  The  prcpositiou  should  have  its  ordinary 
force  here  as  in  the  phrase  Iv  udan."  By  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
certainly  the  "ordinary  force"  of  the  preposition  in  such  re- 
lation ;  but  Baptist  writers  are  quite  unwilling  to  accept 
such  meaning  in  iy  udan.  The  note,  however,  is  not  referred 
to  by  the  translator  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  into  view  an 
incongruous  translation  of  the  preposition,  but  to  vindicate 
the  rejection  of  "Holy  Ghost"  as  the  name  of  the  third  per- 
son in  the  Trinity  on  the  ground,  that,  "By  present  usage 
*  ghost'  is  equivalent  to  '■spectre,  apparition'  (/)" 

The  Baptist  New  Testament  (without  the  Greek  text) 
reads  thus  :  "  For  David  himself  said,  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 
The  difference  between  these  two  editions  is,  that  the  former 
(now  rejected)  gives  us  a  correct  translation,  while  the  latter 
(now  adopted)  gives  us  none  at  all.  It  gives,  in  English 
form,  the  local  Greek  preposition  without  any  intimation 
that  out  of  its  local  use,  under  certain  circumstances,  has 
grown  a  secondary  meaning  expressive  of  influence,  agency, 
instrumentality,  which  requires,  in  English,  to  be  expressed 
otherwise  than  by  a  local  preposition.  It  is  impossible  that 
iv  should,  here,  express  local  inness — "  within  the  Holy  Ghost." 
It  is  equally  impossible  that  h  should  have  primary  relation 
to  the  verb  {zIkbv).  The  action  of  the  verb  was  not  executed 
within  the  Holy  Ghost;  nor  was  it  the  act  of  speaking  which 
was  the  immediate  object  of  control.  It  was  David  who 
spake,  and  it  was  David  who  was  under  the  control  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  idea  of  control  by  one  person  or  thing 
over  anotlier  person  or  thing  is,  in  Greek,  expressed  by  a 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  175 

suggestive  use  of  the  preposition  expressive  of  iuuess. 
Certain  objects  invested  by  certain  things  are  brought  fully 
under  the  influence  peculiar  to  such  things.  Hence,  when 
it  was  desired  to  declare  that  a  person  or  thing  was  under 
some  full  influence,  the  usage  arose  of  expressing  such 
thought  by  saying,  it  was  in  that  thing,  although  inness,  in 
fact,  was  impossible,  and  because  it  was  impossible,  it  was, 
at  once,  understood  that  no  inness  was  designed,  but  simply 
influence  suggested  by  the  local  word.  If,  now,  with  a  just 
understanding  of  the  relation  of  the  preposition,  we  regard 
David  as  "z«,"  that  is  subject  fully  to  the  influence  of,  "  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  we  have  both  an  elucidation  of  the  fitness  of 
the  usage  of  this  preposition,  and  an  indication  of  the  trans- 
lation, "  David  said  b}/  the  Holy  Ghost."  "David  said  m 
the  Holy  Ghost"  may  be  very  good  Greek.  It  is  not  very 
good  English.  Bloomfield  says  (Matt.  22 :  48,  Mark  12 :  36), 
"  It  signifies,  wider  the  vifluence  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Com- 
pare with  this  passage  Mark  13:11:  "  It  is  not  ye  that  speak, 
but  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  Matt.  10  :  20 :  "  The  Spirit  of 
your  Father  speaketh  [iv  u;j.iv)  in  you."  Here  the  absolute 
influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  brought  to  view  without  the 
form  employed  for  its  expression  which  was  before  used. 
Also,  1  Cor.  12 :  3  :  "  ISTo  man  {odde}<;  h  n^eu/j-an  Oeou)  speaking 
6j/the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  accursed;  and  no  man  can 
say  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Bap- 
tist Bible  gives  the  same  translation — "6j/  (iv)  the  Spirit  of 
God" — "6^  {^v  n>£u/iart'Aycu))  the  Holy  Spirit."  Here,  it  is 
evident  that  the  relation  of  the  preposition  is  with  ow^eic,  "  no 
one  in"  (subject  to  the  influence  of)  "the  Spirit  of  God 
calleth  Jesus  accursed;"  and  no  one,  unless  "in"  (subject 
to  the  influence  of)  "the  Holy  Ghost,"  can  say, that  "Jesus 
is  the  Lord."  That  it  is  persons,  and  not  verbs,  whose  re- 
lation to  the  Holy  Spirit  is  indicated  by  the  preposition  is 
unquestionable.  Their  condition  is  affected  by  this  relation. 
And  through  this  relation  to  the  Holy  Ghost  is  determined 
their  relation  to  Jesus.  And,  conversely,  as  their  relations 
to  Jesus  are  determined  by  their  utterances,  so  is  determined 
their  relation  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  in  Him  =  under  his  con- 


176  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

trolling  influence.  The  Baptist  Bible  conforms,  in  the  trans- 
lation of  this  passage,  to  the  rule  which  requires  to  give — 
*'  The  exact  meaning  with  the  least  possible  obscurity  or  in- 
defiuiteness."  How  it  happened  that  the  rule  was  forgotten 
in  translating  Mark  12  :  36  I  do  not  know. 

That  this  phraseology  is  designed  to  give  development  to 
the  controlling  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  farther  evi- 
denced by  parallel  passages  where  the  influence  is  expressed 
without  this  form  of  its  development.  Thus,  in  Acts  1:16: 
"This  Scripture  must  needs  have  been  fulfilled,  which  the 
Iloly  Ghost  {did)  by  the  mouth  of  David  spake."  Acts  28 :  25 : 
"  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  (did)  by  Esaias.'"'  In  these  pas- 
sages agency  is  directly  expressed  as  the  primary  meaning 
of  («5cd)  the  preposition.  In  the  other  cases  agency  is  ex- 
pressed, yet  not  as  the  primary,  direct  meaning  of  {iv)  the 
preposition,  but  one  which  it  has  acquired,  and  with  the 
modus  of  acquisition  more  or  less  clearly  traceable  through 
inness  of  position. 

Luke  2  :  27:  "  He  came  (iv  t<L  Uvsu/iart)  hy  the  Spirit  into 
the  temple."  The  Baptist  translation  is  the  same.  Atten- 
tion is  asked  to  what  is  so  clearly  true,  namely,  that  the  re- 
lation of  the  preposition  is  not  to  the  verb,  as  pointing  out  a 
sphere  within  which  its  act  is  performed,  but  to  Simeon,  ex- 
pressing his  condition  as  under  divine  influence. 

Kom.  15  :  13 :  "  The  God  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy  and 
peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope  {h)  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Baptist  translation  is  the 
same.  I,  again,  call  attention  to  the  relation  of  the  preposi- 
tion as  not  being  with  the  verb.  The  filling  does  not  take 
place  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  nor  is  the  filling  made 
up  of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  of  "joy  and  peace." 
The  relation  oi iv  is,  unquestionably,  with  "  the  God  of  hope" 
who  in  ^  invested  with,  capable  of  wielding  "  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  is,  thereby,  made  competent  "  to  fill  with 
all  joy  and  peace  in  believing."  In  verse  16,  we  again  meet 
with,  "sanctified  [iv  Ihsu/xa-i  "Ayiu})  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
Baptist  translation,  again,  assenting,  llom.  15  :  18, 19:  "For 
I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  those  things  which  Christ 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  177 

hath  not  wrought  (dtd)  through  me,  to  make  the  Gentiles 
obedient,  by  word  and  deed,  bi/  the  power  of  signs  and 
wonders  (iv  Suvd/j.ei),  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
[iv  duvd/iei  UveufiaToq  0eou)."  The  Baptist  translation,  here, 
falls  back  on  in,  "  in  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in 
the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God ; "  why,  it  is  hard  to  tell. 
The  Douay  has,  "i?j/  the  virtue  of  signs  and  wonders,  in 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  However  these  prepositions 
may  be  translated,  by  or  in,  their  relation  is  with  Christ.  He 
is  invested  "with  the  power  of  these  signs  and  wonders," 
and  "  with  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and  uses  both 
so  that  through  Paul  the  Gentiles  are  made  obedient. 

1  Cor.  6  :  11 :  "  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified, 
but  ye  are  justified  (^y)  by  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
[iv  ru)  IIvevfiaTt)  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  Ba2Jtisi:  "  In  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God." 
Douay:  "In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  and  in  the  Spirit 
of  our  God."  All  Christians  are  "  washed,  sanctified,  and 
justified"  by  being  in  =  under  the  full  influence  of,  there- 
fore, by  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  our  redeemer  from  sin,  and  by 
being  in  =  under  the  full  influence  of,  therefore,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  our  regenerator  from  a  fallen  nature.  The 
prepositions  have  no  local  force,  but  indicate  the  condition 
of  Christians  as  affected  by  the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and 
the  Spirit  of  our  God. 

1  Cor.  12  :  9:  "To  another,  faith  (iv  tcL  nveufiart)  by  the 
same  Spirit,  to  another,  gifts  of  healing  {iv  ruj  nveOpLarc)  by  the 
same  Spirit."  BaiAist:  '•'- By  the  same  Spirit,  by  the  one 
Spirit."  1  Peter  1  :  12:  "I^ow  reported  unto  you  by  them 
that  have  preached  the  gospel  unto  you  wiih  the  Holy  Ghost 
sent  down  from  heaven."  Vulgate:  "  Spiritu  saucto  misso 
de  coelo."  Douay:  "  The  Holy  Ghost  being  sent  down  from 
heaven."  Baptist:  ^^ By  the  Holy  Spirit  sent  from  heaven." 
The  preposition  shows  the  relation  between  "the  preachers" 
and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  was  upon  th«m,  upon  Peter  and 
his  associates,  "the  Holy  Ghost  was  sent  down  from  heaven," 
and  being  thus  in  =  under  the  influence  of,  the  divine  Spirit, 
they  were  qualified  for  their  work.     Jude  1 :  20 :  "But  ye, 

12 


178  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

beloved  .  .  .  {iv  nvtbimn  'Ayiw)  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  praying, 
keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God."  The  relation  of  the 
preposition  is  not  primarily  to  {■KpoaeuxoiJ.evot)  "  praying,"  but 
to  {d-yaTLriTin)  "  beloved."  They  being  in  =  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  pray  under  the  guidance  and  control  of 
that  influence. 

These  passages  are  abundantly  sufiicientto  prove,  Baptist 
translators  themselves  being  judges,  that  h  with  Hveuiian  "Aym 
is  not  only  justifiably,  but,  if  translated  at  all,  must  be  trans- 
lated so  as  to  show  not  locality  but  condition,  the  result  of 
influence  exerted  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Office  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  ofiice  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  work  of  redemption 
is  one  of  constant  influence  and  activity  among  the  souls  of 
men.  Since  He  "  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters"  and 
out  of  the  unformed  elements  brought  order,  beauty,  and 
life,  until  now.  He  has  been  the  Great  Worker  in  our  world. 
This  truth  stands  out  with  towering  prominence  through  all 
the  plan  of  redemption.  It  receives  expression  through 
every  form  by  which  active  agency  can  be  denoted — by  the 
use  of  the  Nominative,  Genitive,  and  simple  Dative,  as  well 
as  by  dia,  U7Z0,  and  every  other  appropriate  grammatical  term 
and  form.  In  full  accordance  with  this  is  the  usage  and 
must  be  the  interpretation  of  the  preposition  in  question. 
The  Baptist  view,  ivhich  assigns  to  Christ  the  work  of  putting 
the  souls  of  men  in  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  quiescent  receptacle^ 
revolutionizes  the  gospel  scheme  and,  logically,  subverts 
the  cross  of  Christ.  It  is  not  the  work  of  Christ  to  bring 
the  souls  of  men  to  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  it  is  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  bring  the  souls  of  men  to  Christ. 
Proof  passages  for  these  positions  are  so  abounding  that 
specification  is  unnecessary.  I  only  refer  to  the  entire 
chapter  of  1  Cor.  12,  and  to  the  condensed  truth  in  1  Peter 
1:2:  "Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the 
Father,  through  sanctifi cation  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience 
and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ." 


DR.  conant's  propositions.  179 

BAHTIZQ. 

This  unquestionable  and  abounding  usage  of  the  phrase 
under  consideration  is  sought  to  be  nullified  by  calling  in 
the  aid  of  ftanrt^cu.  It  is  said,  that  the  presence  of  this  word 
in  the  passage  aoToq  ufxai;  ^a-Kriaet  iv  Uveufiari  ^Ayiw,  requires  that 
the  preposition  should  be  translated  in,  and  nveu/ian  'Ayiw 
should  represent  an  element  in  which  u/za?  must  be  dipped. 
To  determine  the  value  of  this  statement  we  must  consider, 
1.  The  meaning  of  /Sarr/^w.  2.  The  force  of  the  phrase 
^anrt^u)  iv.     3.  What  is  the  true  relation  of  h  in  this  passage. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  of /JaTrrctw?  This  question  has 
been  abundantly  answered  in  Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism, 
but  it  would  be  improper  in  meeting  this  word  for  the  first 
time  in  John's  baptism  not  to  notice  the  elaborate  statement 
of  Dr.  Conant  with  which  it  is  accompanied  in  the  "  New 
Version."  That  statement  is  embodied  in  the  following 
fifteen  propositions : 

"  I.  This  word  expressed  a  particular  act,  viz.,  immersion, 
in  a  fluid  or  any  yielding  substance." 

Answer.  This  word  does  not  express  any  particular  act. 
"  Immersion "  is  not  properl}?-  used  to  express  a  particular 
act  or  any  act.  To  immerse  does  not  express  any  particular 
act.  Immersion  is  a  condition  resultant  from  the  act  of  im- 
mersing. The  Greek  verb  does  not  express  a  definite  or 
particular  form  of  action,  but  makes  demand  for  a  condition 
of  intusposition  unlimited  as  to  the  form  of  act  producing  it, 
and  also,  as  to  the  time  of  its  continuance.  Error  as  to  this 
primary  meaning,  especially  so  great  error  as  ties  it  to  "  a 
particular  act,"  must  hopelessly  vitiate  any  judgment  formed 
with  reference  to  a  secondary  usage  or  a  usage  beyond  the 
domain  of  physics. 

"II.  The  word  had  no  other  meaning;  it  expressed  this 
act  alone,  either  literally  or  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  through 
the  whole  period  of  its  use  in  Greek  literature." 

Answer.  "  This  act "  cannot  be  found  anywhere  in  Greek 
literature.  The  error  is  not  verbal,  but  of  substance.  It  is 
not  trivial,  but  essential. 


180  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

"  III.  Its  grammatical  construction  with  other  words,  and 
the  circumstances  connected  with  its  use  accord  entirely 
with  this  meaning  and  exclude  every  other." 

Answer.  ISTeither  grammar  nor  circumstance  testifies  to 
"  a  particular  act." 

"  IV.  In  the  age  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  in  all 
periods  of  the  language,  it  was  in  common  use  to  express 
the  most  familiar  acts  and  occurrences  of  everyday  life." 

Answer.  If  it  was  employed  to  express  diverse  acts,  then 
it  cannot  express  "  a  particular  act." 

"  Y.  There  was  nothing  sacred  in  the  word  itself,  or  in 
the  act  which  it  expressed.  The  idea  of  sacredness  belonged 
solely  to  the  relation  in  which  the  act  was  performed." 

Answer.  Sacredness  is  not  more  absent  from  the  word 
than  is  "  the  act." 

"  VI.  In  none  of  these  respects  does  the  word  baptize,  as 
used  by  English  writers,  correspond  with  the  Greek  word. 
For, 

"  1.  It  does  not  express  any  one  definite  act." 

Answer.  ISTor  does  ^a-KrC^u);  nor  does  the  New  Version 
translation,  "  immerse." 

"  2.  It  is  never  used  to  express  any  particular  act  of  daily 
life." 

Answer.  Nor  is  the  word  Bible  used  to  denote  any  book 
of  daily  life. 

"3.  On  the  contrary  it  only  expresses  a  religious  act;  and 
that  not  of  the  private  individual,  but  an  ecclesiastical  rite, 
an  ordinance  of  the  church." 

Answer.  When  employed  to  denote  a  "rite"  or  "ordi- 
nance" it  is  well  employed. 

"  4.  Hence  this  word  has  become  an  ecclesiastical  symbol, 
representing  in  itself  all  the  ideas  comprehended  in  initiation 
into  the  Christian  church." 

Answer.  And  just  so,  pregnantly,  it  is  used  in  the  Scriptures. 

"  5.  And  hence,  also,  it  has  acquired  a  mystical  sense ; 
with  which  is  associated  in  many  minds,  and  even  in  large 
communities,  the  idea  of  an  inherent  virtue  in  the  rite  itself." 

Answer.  It  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  "  the  idea  of  an  in- 


DR.  conant's  propositions.  181 

herent  virtue  in  tlie  rite"  has  largely  infected  "many  minds 
and  even  large  communities"  who  baptize  by  walking  into 
the  water  and  dipping  the  upper  part  of  the  body. 

"  YII.  The  use  of  this  foreign  word,  of  indefinite  meaning 
and  purport  in  English,  tends  to  perpetuate  the  fatal  error 
of  attaching  a  mystical  sense  and  efficacy  to  the  rite  signified 
by  it." 

Ansioer.  These  considerations  will  have  special  interest 
when  "the  Baptist"  church  shall  reject  their  denominational 
title  because  expressed  by  a  "foreign  word,"  fruitful  in 
"  mystical  sense,"  and  "  of  indefinite  meaning  and  purport 
in  English." 

"  VIII.  It  concerns  the  purity  of  Christianity,  that  its  rites 
should  be  expressed  in  terms  so  clear  and  explicit,  as  to  guard 
against  such  a  perversion  of  their  true  meaning  and  intent." 

Ansive7\  The  purity  of  Christianity  is  more  interested  in 
the  suppression  of  the  novelties  of  to-day  than  in  the  rejec- 
tion of  words  venerable  with  the  hallowed  associations  of 
eighteen  centuries. 

"  IX.  The  rendering  here  given  is  necessary  to  show  the 
true  significance  and  purport  of  the  Christian  rite,  and  the 
obligations  to  which  it  binds  those  who  receive  it." 

Answer.  So  the  translators  of  the  New  Version  believe. 
The  lovers  of  the  Old  Bible  believe  that  their  rendering  is 
destructive  to  "  the  true  significance  and  purport  of  the 
Christian  rite,"  and  strongly  tends  to  drown  any  just  appre- 
hension of  "  the  obligations  to  which  it  binds  those  who 
receive  it." 

"  X.  This  rendering  is  also  necessary  to  the  correct  and 
full  understanding  of  passages  in  the  New  Testament  re- 
lating to  the  Christian  life." 

Ansioer.  No  passages  of  the  New  Testament  can  be  inter- 
preted on  such  rendering  and  give  the  mind  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

"  XL  In  rendering  the  Greek  word  by  immerse,  I  follow 
the  example  of  the  leading  vernacular  versions,  made  from 
the  Greek,  in  the  languages  of  Continental  Europe,  and,  also, 
of  the  critical  versions  made  for  the  use  of  the  learned." 


182  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Aiiswer.  In  translating  "immerse,"  and  in  defining  im- 
merse =  to  express  "one  definite  act,"  a  synonym  of  dip, 
the  word  and  the  definition  are  placed  in  contradiction  to 
each  other;  and  no  one  who  accepts  the  definition  can  be 
accepted  as  a  competent  expounder  of  the  word. 

"  XII.  The  correctness  of  this  rendering  is  attested  by  the 
requirements  and  practice  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  till 
within  a  comparatively  short  time." 

Answer.  If  the  rendering  "immerse"  is  correct,  the  defi- 
nition "one  definite  act"  is  wrong;  if  the  definition  is  right, 
the  rendering  is  wrong.  Whatever  letters  may  enter  into 
the  orthography  of  a  word,  a  word  is  to  him  who  uses  it  just 
what  he  defines  it.  The  man  who  defines  ^amiZm  by  "  one 
definite  act,"  thereby  takes  a  position  from  which  the  just 
interpretation  of  the  word  is  impossible. 

"  XIII.  Its  correctness  is,  also,  attested  by  the  expressed 
opinions  of  eminent  scholars  in  all  communions.  For  ex- 
ample. Dr.  Campbell  (Principal  of  Marischal  College,  Aber- 
deen), Translation  of  Gospels,  &c."  .  .  . 

Answer.  Dr.  Campbell  was  a  man  of  learning  and  ability, 
but  every  man  cannot  know  everything.  Dr.  Campbell  did 
not  know,  critically,  the  meaning  of  (iar.ri^io.  He  says  {On 
the  Gospels,  II,  203),  "  The  Hebrew  73D  perfectly  corres- 
ponds to  the  Greek  iSdnru)  and  ^aitzi^u),  which  are  synonymous, 
and  is  always  rendered  by  one  or  other  of  them  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint."  On  this  statement  I  would  remark,  1.  The  Hebrew 
word  does  not  perfectly  correspond  with  iSaizri^u).  2.  Bdr^rm 
and  /Ja-n'^w  are  not  synonymous.  3.  The  Hebrew  word  is 
not  always  translated  by  one  or  the  other  in  the  Septuagint. 
Every  statement  is  an  error. 

"  XIV.  This  is  not  a  sectarian  rendering;  for  that  cannot 
be  called  sectarian  which  is  proved,  on  indisputable  philo- 
logical evidence  to  be  the  true  rendering  of  God's  word."  .  .  . 

Answer.  There  is  no  philological  evidence  to  prove  that 
this  word  expresses  "one  definite  act." 

"  XV.  A  duty  required  of  every  believer,  at  his  entrance 
on  the  Christian  life,  and  plainly  expressed  in  the  divine 
word,  should  be  made  equally  clear  in  every  version  of  it. 


BAPTIST   TRANSLATOR   OF   MARK.  183 

If  it  can  be  proved,  on  philological  evidence,  that  the  writer 
has  not  given  the  true  meaning  of  the  word,  he  wil]  be  ready 
to  adopt  any  other  version,  that  shall  be  shown  to  be  the 
correct  one." 

Answer.  Whenever  it  shall  be  shown  to  be  "  a  duty  re- 
quired of  every  believer,  and  plainly  expressed  in  the  divine 
word,"  that  he,  or  she,  should  walk  into  the  water,  to  "a 
proper  depth,"  and  have  so  much  of  the  person  as  may  remain 
above  the  water  dipped  into  the  water,  there  will  be  no  ob- 
jection, from  any  quarter,  to  all  this  being  put  into  the  New 
Version  or  the  Old  Version  in  the  plainest  possible  terms. 

These  propositions  are  presented  by  Dr.  Conaut  at  the 
threshold  of  his  work  as  expressive  of  the  meaning  of  this 
word  and  as  the  apologetic  ground  of  the  E'ew  Version. 
Elsewhere  (p.  104)  views  are  expressed  quite  foreign  from 
"  one  definite  act."  The  outstaring  fact,  as  to  definition  and 
translation,  in  every  Baptist  writer  is,  Self-contradiction. 

Translator  of  Mark. 

The  translator  (anonymous)  of  Mark  presents  his  views 
of  this  word,  as  follows  : 

"  1.  Classic  usage.  In  all  instances  where  an  examination 
has  been  made  by  competent  scholars  who  were  not  biassed 
by  a  predilection  for  a  creed,  the  result  has  been  uniformly 
in  favor  of  immerse,  dip,  dip  into;  and  secondarily,  drown,  snik, 
overwhelm,  &c.  In  the  process  of  the  scrutiny,  it  has  been 
settled,  that  there  is  no  diiFerence,  as  to  signification,  between 
^dTZTU)  and  ^oKTi^w.  The  latter  is  merely  a  later  form  of  the 
verb." 

Answer.  This  writer  is,  no  doubt,  a  very  excellent  judge 
of  "competent  scholars"  and  of  those  who  are  "  biassed  by 
a  predilection  for  a  creed,"  but  unfortunately  his  judgment 
as  to  the  meaning  of  ^ar.ri'^u)  is  neither  clear  nor  true.  Had 
his  views  been  clear,  he  would  not  have  mixed  up  "immerse 
and  dip;"  nor  perhaps  have  attempted  to  distinguish  be- 
tween "  dip  and  dip  into ; "  nor  have  deduced  the  modal  act 
of  "  sinking"  from  either  iynmerse  or  dip;  nor  perhaps  would 


184  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

he  have  appended,  that  Baptist  novelty,  "  a  secondary  mean- 
ing" to  a  word  which  Conant  says,  "  during  the  whole  ex- 
istence of  the  Greek  as  a  spoken  language,  had  a  perfectly 
defined  and  unvarying  import,"  and  which  Carson  says, 
meant  "  dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  litera- 
ture," and  never  had  "  a  secondary  meaning."  Certainly  if 
he  had  had  any  true  conception  of  the  words,  he  never  would 
have  said,  "there  is  no  difference  as  to  signification  between 
^dizTU)  and  /3ar-t'Cw." 

The  other  statements  made  by  this  writer  are  embraced 
in  those  already  mentioned  as  in  Dr.  Conant's  propositions. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  them.  No  one  can  carefully  ex- 
amine the  views  of  Baptist  writers  on  the  meaning  of  this 
word  without  being  speedily  confronted  with  either  absolute 
error,  personal  inconsistency,  or  profound  obscurity.  I  do 
not  see  how  they  can  insist  upon  h,  or  any  other  word,  hav- 
ing a  necessary  meaning  because  of  its  connection  with  this 
word,  so  loosely  and  so  incongruously  treated. 

In  a  note,  on  Matt.  3  :  11  (which  is  translated,  "  I  indeed 
immerse  you  in  water").  Dr.  Conant  says,  "  This  is  the  only 
sense  in  which  h  can  be  used  in  connection  with  /SaTrrttw." 

It  is  true  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  ^v  in  connection  with 
this  word  in  certain  circumstances;  but  it  is  not  true  that 
this  is  its  meaning  in  other  circumstances  and  relations 
essentially  diverse. 

"Where  Iv  is  employed  in  connection  with  ^aTz-ci^co  to  express 
the  place  where  a  baptism  takes  place,  it  is  properly  trans- 
lated by  "  in,"  as  in  Mark  1 :  4,  /3a7rr:Twv  h  ttj  ipyj/j-uj,  "  John 
did  baptize  in  the  wilderness."  John  1  :  28,  iv  BtjOa^apa  onou 
^v  "IiudvvTjq  ^aTzziZujv,  "  These  things  were  done  in  Bethabara, 
where  John  was  baptizing."  John  3  :  23,  ^anziZwv  h  Atvm, 
"John,  also,  was  baptizing  in  ^non." 

No  one  will  claim  that  the  connection  between  ev  and 
/SaTrrt'Cw  in  such  passagcs  has  the  remotest  relation  to  the 
meaning  of  the  verb,  or  that  the  meaning  of  the  preposition 
is  controlled  in  the  slightest  degree  by  the  meaning  of  the 


BaTZziZcJ  iv  CONSECUTIVE.  186 

verb.  If  the  verb  meant  any  other  thing  conceivable,  to 
stand,  to  walk,  to  sit,  to  drink,  to  live,  to  die,  to  sprinkle,  to 
pour,  the  preposition  would  remain  unchanged.  It  is,  then, 
possible  for  this  preposition  to  stand  in  the  closest  possible 
juxtaposition  with  this  verb,  and  yet,  be  removed  to  the 
farthest  possible  distance  from  all  dependence  upon  its 
meaning.  So  in  the  Classics,  ^a-KziZonevov  iv  yaXTjvrj,  the  prepo- 
sition has  nothing  to  do  with  the  meaning  of  the  verb.  It 
denotes  a  space  of  time.  The  vessel  was  not  baptized  in  a 
calm,  but  during,  while  the  calm  lasted. 

Where  iv  is  employed  in  connection  with  /JaTrn'Cw  to  denote 
inness  of  position,  it  is  used  with  the  passive  voice  indicative 
of  condition  already  attained,  and  of  rest  in  that  condition. 

Thus,   in    PolybiuS,    Hist.    V,   47,    " /JarTf^o/ievof    iv    roTq   TiXfiafftVj 

baptized  in  the  marshy  pools."  The  preposition,  here, 
marks  the  place  within  which  these  persons  were  baptized 
and  perished  from  suffocation.  In  which  places  so  much  of 
them,  or  of  their  armor  as  may  remain,  abides  in  a  condi- 
tion of  baptism  to  the  present  day.  Plotinus,  "  iv  rw  awfiaTi 
^siSaTZTiff/iivTj,  baptized  in  the  body."  This  is  a  representation 
of  the  soul  as  being  within  the  body,  in  which  condition  it 
rests  day  after  day,  and  year  after  year.     Alexander  Aphro- 

disias,  II,  38,  "  Pe^ar,Ti(Tp.ivfjv  iv  ra>  (iaOei  too  ffw/iaro^,  baptized   in 

the  depth  of  the  body."  This,  also,  represents  the  spiritual 
nature  as  deep  within  the  physical,  and,  consequently,  abiding 
in  an  oppressed  condition.  There  is  no  example,  I  believe, 
in  the  Classics  where  this  verb  in  an  uncompounded  active 
form  is  used  with  h  when  the  object  is  to  be  put  in  a  con- 
dition of  baptism.  And  in  all  cases  where  this  verb  and 
preposition  are  used  together,  the  object  abides  in  the  condi- 
tion, whatever  it  may  be,  which  is  indicated  by  the  preposi- 
tion and  its  noun.     Dipping  is  a  suggestion  of  fatuity. 

Now,  in  the  passage  to  which  Dr.  Conant's  note  is  ap- 
pended, neither  of  these  features  appears.  The  verb  is  in 
the  active  voice,  the  parties  to  the  baptism  are  not  in  a  con- 
dition of  baptism,  and  the  nature  of  the  element  is  such  as 
not  to  allow  of  their  resting  in  the  condition  of  baptism, 
seeing  that  the  object  is  not  to  drown.     Unless,  therefore, 


186  JOIIANNIO   BAPTISM. 

W(!  Hci  ul,  ii()iiLi;lil-  (MuHHical  iiHn;i,(!  iiol,  only  ;ih  Io  IIk;  rriouiiiiif^ 
of  tho  Hiiiiplc  word,  l)iil,  hIho,  :im  Io  IIk;  pliniHo,  wc  iniiHt  con- 
clude, ilml,  iv  vvilli  llu!  active  I'oriii  of  llu;  v(!rl)  do(;H  not  denote 
tlio  exeeiilion  of  a.  l)aj)liHru.  What  llie  (!X(!Cutive  i»liraMeology 
is  we  Hliall  liav(!  occiwion  to  consid(!r  lieriiariiir.  At  [)i'CHeiit 
WC  conliiK^  our  attention  to  the  ]);iHHa,i^e  iinrnediiit(!ly  beCoro 
U8.  And  in  doing  ho  we  would  Hay,  thsit  it  is  no  doctrine 
of  tho  iril)le  that  the  uiiHnion  ol'  th(5  liord  Jchuh  (MiriHt  was 
io  j)ul  men  w'dldn  the  JToly  Ghost.  And,  until  hucIi  <loctrine 
Bhiill  1)0  proved,  we  inunt  declare,  that  liin  Forcii-iiiuicr  did 
not  teiich  tha,t  Huch  wuh  the  object  of  hJH  corning.  JJeHides, 
tlio  theory  in  (^impclh^d  to  abundou  the  force  both  of  the 
verb  and  tlu;  priipoKilion  in  tlu!  phraHc;  fianrif^n)  h  rWart,  giving 
them  both  a,n  (>,vaneH<'(Uit  (•hai'ii<;t(!r.  How  in  it  in  the  ]»hraHe 
l^annaei  Iv  Ihcniuiri  ' Ayio/t  In  thin,  uIho,  an  eva,n(^Mc(Mit  thing,  a 
trivial  matter,  a  dipping?  11"  iv  Ihehii.avi  is  a  bai)tiHm  which 
laHtH  while!  iiumortalily  endurcH,  and  ^v  mV/rt  Ih  a  (/.ippii)(j  {a 
thing  which  is  and  is  not-,  which  [teriHlicH  in  th(!  uning),  what 
iiniruiH  Huch  iiVw.w  concciptiouB ?  Tho  theory  lindH  within 
itHCiir,  aw  w(!ll  anin  the  doclrincH  of  the  ]>ibl(;,  and  in  })hilology, 
iuHuperable  barriers  to  its  dogma. 

HanrifTCi  Iv  Hven/uiTi  'A)'t(f). 

That  "in,"  in  th(i  H(MiHe  ol"  withinncHH,  in  not  the  only 
Sonne  in  wlii<-h  iv  ca,n  Ixi  uh(m1  \vitli /J^TTTt'Cw,  is  an  certain  in 
the  phraHO  [ianTinei  iv  llven/mTt  ' Ayiijt  an  in  the  J)hraHe  ftanrd^ajv  iv 
Trj  i/>-rJ!i(J>,  or,  in  [ianTiU'ii-tvov  iv  yaX-qvfj.  And  thin  certainty  is 
abHolule.  Tin;  Him[>le  HO(pience  of  words  is  neither  con- 
cluKivi!  aH  to  their  meaning  nor  determinative  of  thoir 
logical  ri'lalioiiH,  Theni  in  no  warrant,  whatever,  for  tho 
aHHumption  thai  iv,  in  thirt  phrase,  receives  itH  meaning  from 
IJie  antecedent /9a7rTt>,  or  tha,t  its  logi<;al  relations  are  with 
that  word.  In  tlu!  phra,H(!s  iv  ifrjiw)^  hv  yaXrjvrj,  neither  tho 
meaning  nor  tlu^  logical  relation  of  the  jjreposilion  is  con- 
trolIe(l  by  juxtaposition  with  tlu!  verb.  In  the  lii'st  ('ase  it 
indicat(!H  place  and  is  in  logical  relation  with  .John;  and  in 
tho  Hocond  case;  it  indii^atc^s  a  circumHtance  whose  logical 
relation  is  with  "  ahi[>."     In  tho  case  boforo  us  tho  propo- 


MEANING   OF   iv   riveu/ian  'Ayt'if).  187 

sitiou  is  indicative  of  agency  and  its  logical  relation  is  with 
AuTot;,  pointing  out  tlic  condition  in  wliicli  the  actor  was, 
and,  thus,  his  litncss  for  the  work  attributed  to  liini.  As 
John  was  in  the  wilderness  baptizing,  and  not  baptizing 
in  =  within  the  soil  of  the  wilderness;  and  as  the  ship  was 
in=  during  a  calm  baptized,  and  not  baptized  in  =  within, 
a  calm,  so,  the  Coming  One  being  himself  "  in  "  =  under, 
the  inlluence  of,  did,  therefore,  by  the  poiDcr  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  baptize,  and  did  not  baptize  men  in,  ==  within,  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  such  must  be  the  interpretation  of  this 
passage  is  susceptible  of  the  most  satisfactory  proof 

General  Eoidc7ice. 

In  evidence  for  the  meaning  and  relation  here  attriljuted 
to  iv  we  may  appeal  to  other  passages  of  Scripture  where 
such  meaning  and  relation  are  recognized  and  indubitable. 
We  may  take,  among  very  many  kindi-cd  passages,  Rom. 
9:  1,  "I  speak  the  truth  iv  X/nffraj,  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  my 
conscience  also  bearing  me  witness  iv  Uv£u/j.aTi'Ayew,  in  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Professor  Stuart  rejects  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  which  would  make  it  the  formula  of  an  oath. 
And  says,  "Abundant  analogies  arc  at  hand  to  justify  the 
exegesis  which  is  given  to  iv  X/jc(ttoj  here,  when  we  construe 
it  as  meaning,  in  accordance  loith  Christ,  or  agreeably  to  what 
becomes  one  who  is  in  Christ,  or  who  belonc/s  to  him." 

He,  also,  objects  to  the  conjunction  of  'Feu^o/xai  and  iv 
IlveO/iaTc  'Aycu),  and  establishes  the  relation  of  the  latter  fjlirase 
with  "conscience."  "  It  was  a  conscience  moved  and  en- 
lightened by  this  Spirit,  which  the  A})0stlc  here  solemnly 
declares,  testified  his  affectionate  regard  for  the  Jewish 
nation;  iv  UveO/iarc  'Ayiu}  meaning,  acjrecabhj  to  the  influence 
OF  the  Holy  Spirit.'' 

Professor  llodgo,  in  like  manner,  disapproves  of  the  oath 
formula  interpretation.  lie  says,  iv  X/naTu}  may  be  connected 
with  the  pronoun  /.  "7  in  Christ,  i.  c,  as  a  Christian,  or. 
In  consciousness  of  my  union  v/ith  Christ  (1  Cor.  1 :  30,  3  : 1; 
Rom.  16  :  3,  7).  An  adverbial  interpretation,  after  a  Christian 
manner,  would  convey  much  the  same  meaning.    The  phrase 


188  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

iv  Uveu/jLarc  'Ayiu)  maj  be  connected  with  conscience.  '  My  con- 
science under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost;'  my  sanctified 
conscience." 

Bengel  places  h  Flveufxari  'Ayiu)  in  relation  with  conscience. 
"  The  internal  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit  enlightens  and 
confirms." 

Calvin  says,  "  For  to  this  purpose  he  hath  interposed  the 
name  of  the  Spirit,  that  he  might  prove  how  he  did  handle 
the  cause  of  Christ  at  the  direction  and  moderation  of  the  Spirit 
of  Christ." 

Olshausen  would  interpret  "  Iv  Xpiffto)  and  h  UveufiaTi  'Ayiu) 
as  having  m  understood  after  them."  I,  being  in  Christ, 
speak ;  my  conscience,  being  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  bears  wit- 
ness.    So,  Christ  being  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  baptizes. 

Lange  says  of  ev  Xptazip :  "  He  expresses  his  feeling  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  fellowship  of  Christ  while  he,  so  to 
speak,  transfers  himself  into  the  feeling  of  Christ;"  h 
Tlvebixari  'Ayiu)  he  connects  with  bearing  witness. 

Schaaf  explains:  "  iv  Xpiffraj,  i.  e.,  in  fellowship  with  Christ, 
who  is  Truth  itself,  and  transfers  his  members,  at  all  events, 
into  the  element  of  truth  and  sincerity." 

In  general  accord  with  these  interpretations  are  Tholuck, 
Meyer,  De  Wette,  Grotius,  Alford,  and  others.  Ellicott 
(Eph.  4  :  17)  says,  "  By  thus  sinking  his  own  personality, 
the  solemnity  of  the  Apostle's  declaration  is  greatly  en- 
hanced." 

The  point  on  which  the  testimony  bears  is  this :  Iv  nveOfian 
"Ayioj  may  be  used  to  expound  the  condition  in  which  an  actor 
is,  as  showing  his  qualification  to  perform  a  certain  act,  and 
not  to  express  that  into  which  an  act  is  to  pass,  or  that  within 
which  it  is  to  have  its  development.  And  in  the  case  before 
us,  it  declares  the  condition  in  which  Christ  is  and  his  con- 
sequent qualification  as  a  Baptizer  =  "  Magnus  Baptista." 

Winer  (p.  390),  in  expounding  the  force  of  iv  as  appearing 
in  this  passage  (Rom.  9  :  1)  and  others,  says :  "  It  denotes 
the  clement  in  which  the  speaker  lives :  sj^eak  the  truth  in 
Christ,  as  one  living  in  Christ.  In  so  far  as  the  Christian 
abides  (by  faith)  in  living  (inward,  hence  iv)  fellowship  with 


THE  COMING  ONE  IN  THE  HOLY  GHOST.        189 

Christ,  he  will  do  everything  in  the  consciousness  of  this 
fellowship,  and  through  the  strength  which  this  fellowship 
confers,  i.  e.,  in  Christ,  m  the  Lord"  {in  the  Holy  Ghost); 
"a5  a  Christian,  in  a  Christian  S2nrit,  &c.,  as  the  words  are 
frequently  rendered,  expresses  much  less  than  the  pregnant 
phrase  in  Christ "  {in  the  Holy  Ghost). 

The  Holy  Ghost  abode  in  Christ,  and  Christ  did  abide  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  "  through  the  strength  which  this  fel- 
lowship conferred,"  he  {iv  UveufiaTi  "Ayiu)),  being  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  did  baptize. 

I  will  add  a  quotation,  made,  with  warm  approval,  by  the 
JBaptisi  Quarterly: 

"  The  minute  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  spirit  of  de- 
votion, and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  lead 
us  to  truths  and  conceptions  and  emotions,  of  whose  precious 
value  and  edifying  power  we  shall  not  otherwise  even  dream. 
The  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God  come  to  us  through 
these  words  of  inspiration.  A  doctrine  of  grace  may  dwell  in 
the  right  understanding  of  a  single  preposition.  Who  can  measure 
the  significance  and  worth  of  this  one  expression  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  Christ  ? " 

Specific  Evidence. 

1.  The  Scriptures  teach  us  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
in  =  under  the  influence  of,  and  acted  by  the  power  of,  the 
Holy  Ghost.  His  very  name,  Messiah,  Christ,  Anointed, 
declares  this.  Isaiah  11 : 1,  2 :  "And  there  shall  come  forth 
a  rod  out  of  the  steiji  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out 
of  his  roots :  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon 
him."  This  is  a  clear  declaration  that  the  Son  of  David 
shall  be  under  the  influence  of,  and  shall  act  with  the  power 
of,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  Isaiah  48  :  16  :  "  The  Lord  God 
and  his  Spirit  hath  sent  me."  John  3 :  34:  "He  whom  God 
hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God ;  for  God  giveth  not 
the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him."  The  influence  of  the 
illimitable  possession  of  the  Spirit  secures  correspondent 
results.  Luke  3:22:  "  And  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a 
bodily  shape  like  a  dove  upon  him."     The  influence  of  the 


190  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

Holy  Ghost,  thus  received,  is  immediately  developed.  Matt. 
4:1:  "  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  {vko  tou  nvso/xaroq)  by  the  Spirit 
into  the  wilderness."  Mark  1 :  12:  "And  immediately  {to 
Uveofia)  the  Spirit  driveth  him  into  the  wilderness."  Luke 
4:1:  "And  Jesus  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  returned 
from  Jordan,  and  was  led  {iv  rw  FIveu/xaTc)  '  in,'  and  therefore 
by,  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness."  Here  is  both  the  action 
and  reaction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Lord  Jesus  receives 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  its  fulness  of  influence  upon  himself,  and 
then,  under  the  controlling  power  of  this  influence,  does 
himself  act  with  all  the  peculiar  influence  and  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  In  Luke  iv  rw  Ihsu/xart  takes  the  place  of 
the  nominative  Td  JlveO/ia  in  Mark,  and  the  genitive  utzu  rot) 
nveuixaroq  in  Matthew,  equally  with  them,  yet  not  so  imme- 
diately, expressing  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  "Ev  rai 
Uveuiiari  represents  Christ  as  "w?,"  and,  as  a  consequence, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom,  therefore, 
he  is  led.  His  action  is  invested  with  the  character  and 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  In  that  wilderness  the  Good 
Spirit,  dwelling  without  measure  in  Christ,  met  the  Spirit 
of  Evil  face  to  face.  In  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
Saviour  for  forty  days  repulsed  the  foe."  {Bkkersieth,  Spirit 
of  Life,  ^.  78.)  Is  "the  foe"  repelled  until  he  comes  "in 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  or,  does  Bickersteth  say, 
that  this  is  the  condition  in  which  is  "the  Saviour?"  It 
would  be  a  perfectly  Classical  use  oi'  jSaTzzt^^w,  and  a  perfectly 
Scriptural  use  of  iv,  to  say,  "  Christ,  in  the  wilderness,  did 
baptize  Satan  iv  riveOnaTc  'Aj-cw."  It  would,  however,  be  an 
infinite  blunder  to  make  iv  IIveu/iaTi  'Ayuo  expound  the  con- 
dition into  which  Satan  is  to  be  brought,  instead  of  the 
condition  in  which  Christ  acts.  It  is,  precisely,  this  error 
which  is  developed  in  expounding — "He  shall  baptize  you  iv 
llveu/iarc  'Ayiw,"  mistaking  the  relation  of  the  defining  phrase. 
Luke  4  :  14 :  "And  Jesus  returned"  (from  the  wilderness) 
(sv  rri  dwrj:ij.u  too  Iheu/j.aroc;)  "  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into 
Galilee."  This  declares  the  condition  of  Jesus;  he  was 
<' in,"  =  possessed  of,  and  in  all  that  he  said  and  did  exer- 
cised, "the  power  of  the  Spirit;"  "And  he  taught  in  their 


THE   COMING   ONE   IN   THE   HOLT  GHOST.  191 

synagogues"  (v.  15).  How  did  he  teach  ?  Why,  of  course, 
he  taught  "with  the  power  of  the  Spirit;"  therefore,  "they 
were  astonished  at  his  teaching,  for  his  word  was  with  power  " 
(v.  32).  As  the  Saviour's  teaching  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
so,  also,  were  his  miracles  wrought  in  like  manner — "Jesus 
of  ISTazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  3-ou  by  miracles 
and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  {8cd)  by  him  in  the 
midst  of  you"  (Acts  2  :  22).  The  offering  up  of  himself  as 
an  atoning  sacrifice  was  done  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit — "  Who  (dta  Flvsofiarot;  alwviou)  through  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God"  (Heb.  9:14). 
And,  in  like  manner,  his  final  instructions  were  given — 
"After  that  he  {dia  II'^so/xaTo^  'Ayiou)  through  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  given  commandments  unto  the  Apostles"  (Acts  1 :  2). 
On  this  phrase,  in  this  passage,  the  distinguished  Baptist 
commentator.  Professor  Hackett,  says,  ^Hlirough  the  Holy 
Spirit;  his  influence,  guidance.  This  passage,  in  accordance 
with  other  passages,  represents  the  Saviour  as  having  been 
endued  abundantl}^  with  the  influences  of  the  Holj^  Spirit, 
and  as  having  acted  always  in  conformity  with  its  dictates 
(see  10  :  38 ;  Luke  4:1;  John  3  :  34,  &c.).  That  subjection 
was  one  of  the  laws  of  his  dependent  nature."  (Comm.  in 
loc.)  And  on  4:  26,  "/«s  Christ,  his  anointed  one.  In  He- 
brew symbology  anointing  denoted  his  receiving  the  spiritual 
gifts  and  endowments  which  he  needed  for  the  performance 
of  his  duties.  He  is  called  the  Anointed,  by  w^a}^  of  eminence, 
because  he  possessed  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  without  measure, 
was  furnished  in  a  perfect  manner  for  the  work  which  he 
came  into  the  world  to  execute."  This  exposition  is  confir- 
matory, in  the  highest  degree,  of  our  interpretation.  Christ 
being  Iv  nveO/mrc  "Ayiu)  "  was  furnished  in  a  perfect  manner  for 
the  work"  {he  shall  baptize  you)  "which  he  came  into  the 
world  to  execute." 

2.  The  same  phraseology  is  employed  by  Scripture,  of 
others,  to  denote  their  being  under  or  invested  with  some 
influence.  Luke  10  :  17 :  "  Lord,  even  the  devils  are  sub- 
ject unto  us  {iv)  through  thy  name."  The  disciples  (not  the 
devils)  were  "in"  (invested  with,  clothed  with,  the  power 


192  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of)  the  name  of  Jesus;  therefore,  by  this  name  they  cast  out 
devils. 

The  agency  of  this  name  is  stated,  without  a  preposition, 
in  Mark  9 :  38  (perhaps,  because  the  disciples  did  not  recog- 
nize these  persons  as  deriving  their  power  from  being  [iv] 
^^in  Christ"):  "Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils 
(rJi  6v6fiari)  by  thy  name"  (Sin.  Ms.  iv).  And  in  Matt.  7 :  22: 
"  Lord  (tw  o-w  oVo/zarr),  by  thy  name  we  have  cast  out  devils ;" 
"  6v6/iarc  ^pcffrorj,  i.  e.,  non  tantum  auctoritate  Christi,  sed 
etiam  potentia  et  auxilio  Christi  freti.  Sic  enim  sumitur 
hffic  phrasis  etiam  Marc.  9  :  38,  coll.  Luc.  9  :  49,  ubi  aliquis, 
qui  non  erat  discipulus,  l-r:i  (Sin.  ^v;  Tisch.  cttj)  rw  ovdiiazi  "Irjaoo 
doemonia  ejecisse  dicitur.  Hie  certe  non  auctoritate,  non 
jussu  Christi  dcemonia  ejecit,  sed  potentise  ejus  fretus,  usus 
formula,  qua  discipuli  uti  solebaut :  in  nomine  lesu  volo  ut 
doemoniacus  sanitati  restituatur."  [Rosenmul.  in  loc.)  It  is 
however  true,  that  iv  ruj  aaj  dv6[mzt  may  express  a  profounder 
meaning,  as  to  condition,  than  the  nude,  instrumental  dative. 
Acts  3:6:  "In  the  name  {h  tSj  dvoimxi)  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth,  rise  up  and  walk."  The  source  of  power  is  "  the 
name,"  as  shown  in  v,  16,  "And  his  name,  through  faith  in 
his  name,  hath  made  this  man  strong;"  4:7,  "by  what 
means  (^v  xm)  this  person  is  made  whole ; "  Baptist,  Quarto, 
Greek,  "In  what  name;"  Baptist,  English,  N.  T.  returns  to 
the  Common  Version,  v.  10,  "by  the  name  {h  rui  dvofiarc) 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  by  him  (iv  rouro))  doth  this  man 
stand  here  before  you  w^hole;"  Baptist,  Quarto,  "m  the 
name;"  Baptist  N.  T.,  ''hy  the  name."  v.  12,  ''by  which 
[iv  w)  we  must  be  saved."  Here,  again,  the  two  Baptist 
translations  are  at  contraries ;  the  one  adopting  "  in,"  the 
other  "  by."  v.  30,  "  that  signs  and  wonders  may  be  done, 
8ta,  through  the  name  of  thy  holy  child  Jesus."  The  use  of 
8ia  shows  that  Iv  rip  ovo/iari  is  indicative  of  power. 

Matt.  9  :  34 :  "  He  casts  out  devils  {iv  rui  dpxovTi)  through 
the  prince  of  the  devils."  This  is  the  Baptist  translation,  to 
which  this  note  is  appended  :  "  'Ev  (with  dat.  oifers.)  denotes 
the  one  in  whom  resides  the  power  or  authority  by  which  a 
thing  is  done;  hence  by  or  throuyh."     But  this  statement  is 


THE  COMING  ONE  IN  THE  HOLY  GHOST.        193 

not  clear.  It  does  not  show  any  connecting  link  between 
the  Prince  of  demons,  in  whom  the  power  resides,  and  the 
Caster-out  of  demons,  who  exercises  this  power.  The  state- 
ment in  the  note  implies,  that  the  Prince  of  the  demons  was 
the  direct  and  visible  actor,  just  as  though  d]a  or  u-rtd  were 
used.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  Prince  of  the  demons 
does  not  appear  in  the  transaction.  But  the  power  exercised 
is  attributed  to  him,  and  its  transference  to  the  visible  actor 
is  accounted  for  by  declaring  that  he  is  '•  in  "  =  under  the 
influence  of,  invested  with  the  power  of,  the  Prince  of  the 
demons,  and  thus  becomes  the  channel  through  which  this 
power  flows.  Matt.  12  :  24 :  "  This  man  does  not  cast  out 
devils  except  through  Beelzebub  {h  rw  IhtX^e^h))  prince  of 
the  devils"  [Baptist  Version).  Here,  again,  the  source  of 
power  is  made  to  reside  "  in  "  Beelzebub,  and  its  transfer- 
ence is  exhibited  by  the  verbal  form  which  declares  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  to  be  "  in  Beelzebub."  The  theory,  to 
be  consistent,  would  connect  the  verb  and  the  preposition 
together,  and  make  the  casting  out  of  the  devils  to  be  a 
casting  of  them  in,  within,  Beelzebub!  v.  27,  "And  if  I 
[h  BssKe^ohX)  through  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils  {iv  tcvc), 
through  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out?"  {Baptist 
Version.)  v.  28,  "But  if  I  (^v  r^vzuiian  Oeou)  through  the  Spirit 
of  God  cast  out  devils"  [Baptist  Version).  In  the  parallel 
passage,  Luke  11 :  20,  "  But  if  I  [iv  daxruXui  deod)  by  the  finger 
of  God  cast  out  the  demons"  [Baptist  Versio7i).  Rosenmuller 
says:  "  ^i^  meunart  dyiu),  per  potcniiani  divinam,  adjuvante  Deo. 
Permutantur  notiones  spiritus  et  potentise ;  quod  enim  uno 
in  loco  dictum  est  fieri  spiritu,  id  in  altero  potentise  divinse 
tribuitur.  Cf.  Luc.  XI,  20." 

It  will  be  observed  throughout  these  passages,  that  the 
Baptist  translation  of  iv  is  invariably  "  through  "  or  "  by." 
It  will  also  be  noticed,  that  this  preposition  with  a  person  is 
said  to  indicate  the  source  of  power.  And  farther  we  should 
notice,  that  the  logical  relation  established  by  this  preposi- 
tion is  with  the  actor  who,  through  it,  becomes  clothed  with 
that  power  which  belongs  to  the  adjunct  of  the  preposition. 
The  evidence  is  absolute  as  showing  that  the  Jews  declared 

13 


194  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Christ  to  be  iv  BeeXZe^ohX  =  invested  with  the  power  of  Beel- 
zebub, while  he  declared  himself  to  be  ^v  IIyeOp.arc  0eou  =  in- 
vested with  the  power  of  God.  The  evidence  is  equally  ab- 
solute as  proving,  that  the  language  of  John  may  declare 
that  Christ  is  kv  Fheo/iari  'Ayiu)  =  invested  with  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  able  to  baptize,  to  influence  cou- 
trollingly,  to  change  completely  the  condition  of  the  souls 
of  men.  The  design  of  John  (contrasting  Christ's  power 
and  his  own)  demands  this.  And  the  phraseology  impera- 
tively forbids  iv  IlveuimTt  'Ayiu}  being  regarded  as  an  element 
into  which,  or  within  which,  the  baptism  takes  place.  Under 
this  phraseology  the  "casting  out"  is  indifierently  ascribed 
to  Satan  (v.  26)  and  to  Christ  (v.  27),  and  under  like  phra- 
seology the  "  baptism"  may  be  indifferently  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  or  to  Christ. 

As  immediately  related  to  the  general  subject,  and  shed- 
ding a  clear  light  on  this  particular  aspect  of  it,  we  may 
refer  to  the  statement  made  respecting  the  Forerunner  of 
Jesus  contained  in  Luke  1:  17:  "He  shall  go  before  him 
{iv  meuixari  xai  duvdpLst.  'HXia<:)  ill  the  Spirit  and  power  of  Elias." 
This  represents  the  condition  of  John,  passively.  Two  re- 
lated fiicts  (but  not  related  as  cause  and  efiect)  are  stated.  If 
it  were  designed  to  declare  that  "the  going"  was  caused  by 
"  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,"  then  the  translation  must  be, 
"he  shall  go  before  him  by  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias;" 
but  the  design  being  merely  to  announce  John's  personal 
fitness  fen-  his  work,  and  not  his  active  engagedness  in  it  by 
the  performance  of  particular  acts,  the  translation  must  rep- 
resent him,  simply,  as  "//i"  :=  under  the  influence  of,  "  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elias."  In  farther  illustration  we  ra-AY 
take  Luke  2  :  27  :  "  He  came  [Iv  rw  meufiau)  by  the  Spirit  into 
the  temple"  [Coiiimov,  Baptist,  and  Douay  Versions).  These 
translations  are  correct  if  "  the  coming  into  the  temple"  be 
the  outworking  of  the  influence  under  which  Simeon  is  de- 
clared to  be;  but  if  the  coming  into  the  temple  be,  as  is 
quite  possible,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  duty,  and  not  from 
special  influence,  then,  we  must  translate,  "  He  came  in  the 
Spirit  into  the  temple,"  and  we  must  refer  this  statement  to 


THE   COMING    ONE    IN   THE    HOLY   GHOST.  195 

his  couditioii  as  having  reference  to  what  he  was  about  to 
do  after  he  came  into  the  temple,  and  as  stamping  with  di- 
vine authority  liis  utterance  respecting  the  child  Jesus  and 
his  mother  Mary.  But  we  have  not  a  passive  condition,  but 
a  state  of  activity  clearly  expressed  in  Matt.  22  :  43  :  "  How, 
then,  does  David  by  the  Spirit  call  him  Lord  ? "  This  is  the 
Baptist  Version,  and,  in  a  note,  it  is  added  :  "  By  the  Spirit, 
is  the  proper  rendering,  here,  whether  we  understand  iv 
meuiian  as  meaning,  under  his  power  and  influence  (Robin- 
son, New  Test.  Lex.,  iv,  3,  a.  y.),  or,  by  his  aid  or  intervention 
(Ibid.  d.  a.)."  Reference  is  also  made  to  the  fact,  that  iv 
UveO/iari  appears  without  the  article ;  but  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, Mark  12  :  36  {iv  rm  lIveopLan  Tw  ^Ayiu)),  it  appears  in  the 
fullest  possible  form.  There  is,  also,  a  reference  to  the  note 
on  9  :  34,  already  quoted,  limiting  iv  =  by,  through,  to  per- 
sons. This  meaning,  however,  is  not  limited  to  persons. 
Professor  Hackett  translates  Acts  1:3  {iv  zexfiTjpcocc;),  ^^by 
proofs ; "  and  Acts  4:7  {iv  -koIu  duvdij.et),  "  by  what  power ; " 
and  Acts  4  :  12  {iv  <L)  "  by  which,"  and  so  in  multitudes  of 
cases  for  precisely  the  same  reason  that  iv  BeeKeiSohX  is  trans- 
lated '■'■by  Beelzebub,"  and  iv  llveufiarc  "Ayiu)  is  translated  "% 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  to  wit,  because  in  these  things  resides  a 
power  which  finds  development  causative  of  appropriate  re- 
sults. Baptist  argumentation  necessitates  the  translation, 
"he  shall  baptize  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

And,  now,  returning  to  the  Scripture — "  Upon  whom  thou 
shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  He  which  baj3tizeth  iv  llv^uixan'Ayioj^' — we  say,  that 
the  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  it  not  only  may  be,  but 
must  be  translated  so  as  to  show,  that  the  Baptizer  is  acting 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  effecting  a  baptism  characterized  by  the 
efficient  power  and  peculiar  nature  of  that  Divine  Person, 
and  not  so  as  to  represent  the  subjects  of  this  baptism  as  put 
within  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Jews  blasphemed  by  saying 
that  Christ,  himself,  was  ^i^  BeeX^^ohX,  not  by  saying,  that  he 
cast  devils  within  Beelzebub  !  John  says,  "Auroq  ^Sanriaei  o/xaq  iv 
IIveufiaTi  'Ay:oi  (Mark  1 :  8),  which  is  structurally  parallel  with 


196  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

OoTo^  sxiSaUet  datpSvca  h  tw  BeeXZs^ohk  (Matt.  12  :  24).  It  IS  certain 
from  the  Saviour's  form  of  language  in  v.  27,  ^r^^  t-i  BeeXZefiohX^ 
that  this  phrase  is  expository  of  Outoi;;  and  from  his  language 
in  V.  28,  ^y(o  b  Iheofian^  it  is  equally  certain  that  duT<K  in  Matt. 
3  :  11  is  expounded  by  iv  Uvsv^iaTt  'Aynp.  And  this  being  so, 
the  condition  of  the  Baptizer  and  the  character  of  the  bap- 
tism are  settled. 

Summary  of  Errors. 

1.  That  fianriZu)  expresses  a  definite  act  or  requires  a  tem- 
porary covering,  has  been  disproved  in  Classic  and  Judaic 
Baptism. 

2.  That  /9a7rr:tw  h  is  a  formula  expressive  of  the  execution 
of  a  baptism,  is  an  error  entirely  without  foundation  whether 
in  or  out  of  the  Classics. 

3.  That  h,  simply  sequent  of  ^aitri'^iD,  must  express  iDiihin- 
ncss,  is  an  error  disproved  by  Classical  usage  as  well  as  by 
that  of  the  l!^ew  Testament. 

4.  That  there  is  any  necessary  logical  dependence  of  iv  on 
the  executive  meaning  of  (SaTzri^co,  by  reason  of  immediate 
sequence,  is  a  position  disproved. 

5.  That  the  mission  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  to  put  the 
souls  of  men  "  within  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  a  portentous  and 
revolutionary  error  originated  by  the  theory. 

6.  That  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  passive  recipient  of  the  souls 
of  men  baptized  within  it,  is  an  error  subversive  of  his  divinely 
revealed  office  work  as  the  Agent  ever  active  in  applying  to 
the  souls  of  men  the  fruits  of  redeeming  love. 

7.  That  there  is  any  dipping  or  immersing  of  the  bodies 
or  souls  of  men  within  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  this  passage,  is 
an  entire  misconception  of  its  import. 

On  the  other  hand  we  hold  as  established  truths : 

1.  '£v,  in  the  sense  with,  by,  through,  is  of  common  occur- 
rence in  the  Septuagint,  Apocrypha,  and  New  Testament. 

2.  'Ev,  in  the  phrase  h  Uveuixau  "Ayiuy,  must  ordinarily  (and 
where  activity  is  expressed,  invariably)  be  translated  by; 
such  meaning  logically  proceeding  from  withinness. 

3.  'Ev,  in  the  phrase  iv  nveOfian  (with  its  variations),  con- 


THE  COMING  ONE  IN  THE  HOLY  GHOST.       197 

nectecl  with  an  active  verb,  is  logicallj^  related  to  the  actor, 
and  denotes  with  its  adjunct,  the  condition  of  the  actor  and 
the  character  of  the  influence  or  power  put  forth  by  him. 

4.  BanriZu)  here  (as  it  has  been  proved  it  is  its  office,  else- 
where, to  do)  indicates  a  complete  change  in  the  condition 
of  its  objects;  the  character  of  that  condition  being  deter- 
mined, as  always,  by  the  nature  of  the  baptizing  power. 

5.  The  passage  in  teaching,  that  Christ  is  "  in  "  =  under 
the  influence  of,  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  so  baptizes  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  harmonizes  with  all  other  Scripture  teaching. 

6.  The  souls  of  men  being  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  not  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  great  office  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  declared  and  vindicated. 

7.  The  form  of  the  phraseology  (the  Hellenistic  use  of  iv 
excepted)  is  precisely  th^  same  with  that  of  related  baptisms 
in  the  Classics,  to  wit,  the  verb  with  the  dative  of  the  in- 
fluence or  agency. 

8.  The  nature  and  power  of  the  baptism  received  is,  in 
general,  indicated  by  the  condition  in  which  the  baptizer  is, 
thus  qualifying  him  to  baptize. 

Specific  baptisms  must  have  specific  indications. 

As  to  the  precise  nature  of  this  baptism  I  would  say,  Ko 
specific  character  is  given  to  it.  Its  generic  character  is  de- 
clared in  the  most  explicit  manner.  It  is  a  baptism  which  is 
divinely  efficient  as  to  its  power  and  generically  holy,  puri- 
fying, in  its  nature.  But  within  this  general  character  there 
is  room  for  "multa  baptismata"  of  a  specific  character,  such 
as  dq  ixeravoiav^  dq  dfzatv  aiiapziwv^  and  Others,  which  we  shall 
meet  with  hereafter.  At  present  I  remark,  that  this  avoid- 
ance of  more  specific  statement  was  what  the  time  required. 
It  was  necessary  for  the  Forerunner  to  speak  of  the  Com- 
ing One,  and  to  declare  him  to  be  mightier  than  himself, 
as  administering  a  baptism  most  real  in  its  nature,  while 
his  was  but  a  symbol  shadow  of  that  reality;  but  it  was  not 
timely  to  proclaim,  specifically,  that  baptism  which  took  in 
the  issues  of  his  future  life  and  death.  John,  therefore,  rests 
in  the  declaration,  that  the  baptism  of  his  Lord  shall  be  such 
as  is  effected  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost."   We  shall  soon  see  that 


198  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

he  is  more  specific  in  announcing  the  character  of  the  bap- 
tism which  is  distinctive  of  his  own  ministry,  and  so  indicates 
one  of  the  specific  baptisms  which  must  be  wrought  in  the 
soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  close  this  aspect  of  the  subject  by  the  following  quotation 

from  Origen,  IV,  273,  Aca  touto  ?.aj3wv  rd  Uveufia  /livov  ^tt'  aorav 
'I-qanov^    h    aurui   iJ-dvavn    (ianzi^ecv   rohq   7rpo(Tsp)fop.ivouq   duruj    dwrjOrj, 

"  Therefore,  having  received  the  Holy  Spirit  abiding  upon 
him,  he  is  enabled,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  abiding  in  him,  to 
baptize  those  who  come  unto  him."  This  passage  declares, 
most  explicitly,  that  Origen  regarded  Christ  as  clothed  with 
power  to  baptize  through  the  influence  of  the  indwelling 
Spirit;  which  he  had  just  described  as  the  "pure  and  true 
Dove  bound  unto  him  and  no  more  able  to  fly  away  from 
him."  He  did  not  teach,  that  Christ  dipped  the  souls  of 
men  into,  or  covered  them  momentarily  within  the  Holy 
Ghost,  abiding  upon  him.    Compare  with  this  and  the  other 

passages,  1  Cor.  12  :  12,  13  oStw  xal  6  Xpiffzoq'  xa)  yap  h  h\  nvzhfiari 
Tjlieiq  Tzdvreq  dq  eV   awfia  ki3a7tT{ffO^/j.ev ;    where    baptism    "m    the 

Spirit"  is  excluded  by  the  express  statement  eiq  h  au)[ia;  and 
where  iv  is  either  directly  and  simply  instrumental,  or  is  so, 
indirectly,  by  declaring  the  relation  between  Xpiffvo':  and 
Uveu/iaTc.  What  John  declares  Christ  would  do,  Paul  de- 
clares Christ  has  done.  John  came  "  in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  Elias,"  and  so  symbolly  baptized.  "The  Mightier  One" 
came  "m  the  Spirit"  and  power  of  Jehovah,  and  so  di- 
vinely baptized  all  his  people. 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE. 

Matthew  3  :  11. 

'i4yroc  u/idq  jSaTtrlffst xai  Tzopi. 

"  He  will  baptize  you by  fire." 

The  Theory. 
The  friends  of  the  theory  have  very  little  to  say  respecting 
this  baptism.   After  examining  some  of  the  most  voluminous 


BAPTISM    BY   FIRE.  199 

writers  to  learn  what  interpretation  they  would  give  to  it,  I 
have  found  it  to  be  either  wholly  passed  by  or  dismissed  with 
a  reference  to  the  "like  as  of  fire"  tongues  of  Pentecost. 
While  this  allusion  may  furnish  so  much  of  a  point  of  con- 
tact between  the  two  passages  as  can  be  gathered  from 
"  fire"  and  "  like  as  of  fire,"  yet  there  is  not  so  much  as  the 
likeness  of  a  point  of  contact  between  dipping  the  body  into 
fire,  and  fire-like  tongues  resting  on  the  head !  We  have 
seen  the  theory  maintaining  the  "one  definite  act"  dogma 
in  the  presence  of  scores  of  baptisms  in  the  Classics  in  which 
no  such  act  was  to  be  found;  and  we  shall  find  like  bap- 
tisms in  Scripture  confronting  and  repudiating  the  notion 
that  Bible  baptism  is  and  can  only  be,  a  dipping  into  water. 
There  never  was  a  theory  more  utterly  at  war  with  facts 
than  is  this  dipping  into  water  theory. 

Dr.  Conant,  in  his  translation  of  Matthew,  has  a  note  on 
this  verse,  but  says  nothing  of  dipping  or  immersing  "  in 
fire."  The  translator  of  Luke,  also,  has  a  note  on  the  verse 
where  this  fire  baptism  is  announced,  but  he  passes  it  by 
in  silence.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  no  friend  of  the  theory 
will  ever  rely  upon  this  passage  as  a  proof  text  in  support 

of  his  cause. 

The  Patristic  View. 

The  early  Christian  writers  have  pursued  a  very  different 
course  in  relation  to  this  passage  from  that  adopted  by  our 
Baptist  friends.  They  have,  almost  without  exception,  re- 
ferred to  it  and  given  interpretations  of  it.  Whether  their 
views  should  commend  themselves  to  our  judgment  as  cor- 
rect or  not,  their  consideration  must  be  interesting,  and  can 
hardly  fail  to  be  instructive  so  far  as  the  use  of  words  is 
concerned. 

Basil. 

Basil  the  Great  in  commenting  on  Isaiah  4  :  4,  'ExnXuvst 
Koptoq — "The  Lord  will  wash  away  the  filth  of  the  sons  and 
of  the  daughters  of  Zion,  and  purge  out  the  blood  of  Jeru- 
salem from  their  midst  {kv  meu/xarc  xp{(T£U)':,  xai  iv  Tzveo/JiaTC  xabaewq) 

by  a  spirit  of  judgment  and  a  spirit  of  burning,"  adds,  "  The 
Scripture  clearly  foretells  the  same  things  by  John,  saying 


200  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

concerning  tlie  Lord — He  shall  baptize  you  h  77v£'V«''  '^r'V 
xat  TzupL"  The  grammatical  structure  of  these  passages  is 
identically  the  same.  Beyond  all  controversy  kv  msuriaTi 
xpiaeojq  xai  Iv  Tzvsu/mTt  xauffsiuq  represent  the  means  whereby  the 
washing  and  purging  are  to  be  effected.  It  is  no  less  certain 
that  the  primary  and  logical  relation  of  these  agencies  is 
Avith  "the  Lord"  who  uses  them  for  "washing  away"  and 
"  purging  out,"  They  declare  the  power  of  which  he  is  pos- 
sessed. And  if  "  things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing 
are  equal  to  each  other,"  then,  the  same  interpretation  must 
rule  in  the  language  of  John  as  in  that  of  Isaiah. 

Basil,  farther,  adds:  "But  concerning  himself  he  says, 
'I  indeed  baptize  you  by  water  into  repentance.'  Since, 
then,  the  Lord  has  conjoined  both,  that  'Ex  ooaroq  by  means 
of  water  into  repentance,  and  that  'Ex  Ihsu/iaroq  by  means  of 
the  Spirit  into  regeneration,  the  Scripture  also  declares  both 
baptisms.  Perhaps  there  are  three  meanings  of  baptism, 
1.  Purification  from  filth,  2.  Regeneration  (Std)  through  the 
Spirit,  and  3.  The  trial  by  the  fire  of  judgment,  so  that 
cleansing  for  the  removal  of  sin  now  may  be  received,  but 
the  cleansing  by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  the  spirit  of 
burning  relates  to  the  test  hereafter  [dcd)  through  fire." 

These  views  of  Basil  do  not  point  in  the  remotest  degree 
to  a  dipping  or  an  immersing  "m  a  spirit  of  judgment  and 
in  a  spirit  of  burning,"  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,"  or 
"  in  water."  It  is  impossible  for  language  to  be  used  which 
would  more  variedly  or  more  absolutely  declare  all  these 
things  to  bo  agencies.  We  not  only  have  h  r^veoixart.  xpicrsuiq 
xai  h  Tveoixari  xanff£ajq  uscd  under  circumstauccs  which  impera- 
tively exclude  withinncss  from  the  preposition,  but  we  have 
the  same  phrase  repeated  with  the  preposition  thrown  aside. 
"We  have  not  only  kv  instrumental  in  iv  Ihtbixan  "Ayiuj,  but  we 
have  this  exchanged  for  h  Iheu/iaux;  and  dcd  IheuimToq.     We 

have  not  only  h  Tzupl,  but  also  ix  too  Trupdq  and  S:d  roD  T:upd<;, 
We  have  not  only  kv  udarc,  but  also  i^  udauK  and  and  tou  odaTOt;. 

]^ow,  if  there  be  any  dipping  or  immersing  in  these  bap- 
tisms, it  is  not  to  be  found,  Basil  being  judge,  in  the  water, 
or  in  the  fire,  or  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  in  the  spirit  of  judg- 


BAPTISM   BY    FIRE.  201 

ment  and  of  burning.  It  must  be  looked  for  somewhere 
else.     In  his  treatise  on  Baptism  (III,  1541),  he  defines  fire 

baptism    thus,    ''^  ^aTtnadivra  iv  rw  Tzupi,  toot   iaziv  kv  rui  koyuj  r^? 

didaaxaXiaq  baptized  by  the  fire,  that  is,  by  the  word  of  doc- 
trine." As  doctrine  is  instrumentality  so  must  be  fire. 
And  in  his  work  on  the  Holy  Spirit  (IV,  132),  having 
quoted  the  passage,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire,"  he  adds :  "  Calling  the  trial  by  the  judg- 
ment, TO  Tou  Tzupd<z  ^dnrcfffia,  the  baptism  of  fire,"  according  to 
the  saying  of  the  Apostle,  rd  nup,  "  The  fire  shall  try  every 
man's  work,  what  it  is,"  and  again,  "For  the  day  shall  de- 
clare it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire."  Thus,  again, 
we  have  agency  expressed  by  the  nominative,  and  the  geni- 
tive, as  well  as  by  the  dative. 

Whatever  authority  belongs  to  Basil  the  Great  as  a  Greek 
scholar,  it  is  directed  crushingly  against  the  theory  as  to  its 
doctrine  respecting  fia-zi'^m^  pd-Knaiia,  and  the  relation  of  these 

words  to  iv  TTvaufiarc  ct/'t'w,  i.v  rcZi  Tzupi,  &C. 

Jerome. 

Jerome  (VII,  30)  expounds  this  baptism  by  saying,  "  Sive 
quia  ignis  est  Spiritus  sanctus,"  either  because  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  fire,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  teach,  "  which  de- 
scending, sat  like  fire  upon  each  of  them ; "  and  the  word 
of  the  Lord  was  fulfilled,  saying,  "  I  came  to  send  fire  upon 
the  earth  and  how  do  I  desire  that  it  may  burn  ; "  or  "  Be- 
cause, now,  we  are  baptized  {spiriiu)  by  the  Spirit,  and,  here- 
after {igne)  by  fire."  V.  686,  Translating  Origen  on  Jere- 
miah, he  says,  "  Perhaps  Jesus  baptizes  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire,  not  because  he  baptizes  the  same  person  by  both, 
but  while  the  good  are  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  who 
returns  to  his  sins  is  purged  by  the  torment  of  burning. 
Happy  is  he  who  receives  the  cleansing  (Spiritus  Sancti)  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  does  not  need  the  cleansing  of  fire.  But 
wretched  and  worthy  of  weeping  is  he  who  after  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  Spirit  must  be  baptized  (igni)  by  fire.  Jesus  has 
both  baptisms :  '  For  a  rod  shall  come  forth  from  the  root 
of  Jesse,  and  a  flower  shall  rise  up  from  his  root'  (Is.  11 : 1); 


202  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

a  rod  for  transgressors,  a  flower  for  the  righteous.  So  the 
Scriptures  say,  '  God  is  both  a  consuming  fire  and  a  light ' 
(Heb.  12  :  20;  1  John  3:5);  a  fire  for  transgressors,  a  light 
for  the  holy." 

Jerome  takes  his  place  with  Basil  against  dipping  or  im- 
mersing "  in  fire,"  and  vindicates  agency.  The  Greek  of 
Origen  (III,  281)  is,  if  possible,  still  more  explicit:  "  Blessed 
is  he  who,  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  does  not  need  [(ian- 
ziaixazoi;  too  ar.b  nupoc;^  the  baptism  which  is  from  fire.  But 
thrice  wretched  is  he  who  needs  [i^aTzziaaffQat  zuj  nupi)  to  be 
baptized  by  fire." 

Language  is  better  calculated  to  conceal  our  thoughts  than 
to  reveal  them,  if  a  baptism  cltzo  Ttvp6>;  or  zui  ixupi  is  intended  to 
express  a  dipping  into  fire,  or  a  temporary  covering  within 
fire. 

Hilary. 

The  section  (I,  926,  4)  which  treats  of  this  baptism,  by 
Hilary,  bears  the  heading — "  Christus  noster  servator  et 
judex."  "  '  He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
fire,'  designates  the  time  of  our  salvation  and  of  judgment 
by  the  Lord;  because  having  been  baptized  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  remains  to  be  completed  (igne  judicii)  by  the  fire 
of  judgment."  It  is  not  within  the  bounds  of  possibility 
that  Hilary  could  by  such  language  intend  to  indicate  a  dip- 
ping or  an  immersing  in  the  fire  of  judgment. 

The  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  evidently,  is  a  condition 
of  the  soul  in  which  a  certain  change  is  eftected,  but  not 
adequate  to  fit  it  for  heaven;  and  another  baptism,  igiie 
judicii,  is  required  for  this  end.  In  all  this  the  performance 
of  "a  definite  act"  never  once  makes  its  appearance;  but  a 
change  of  condition  confronts  us  everywhere,  and  the 
agencies  in  eflecting  this  change  are  the  Holy  Spirit  and  a 
fiery  judgment. 

Ambrose. 

Ambrose  (II,  1227)  asks :  "  Quis  est  qui  in  hoc  igne  bap- 
tizat  ?  "Who  is  it  that  baptizes  by  this  fire  ?  Not  a  Pres- 
byter, not  a  Bishop,  not  John,  not  an  Angel,  not  an  Arch- 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  203 

angel,  not  Dominions,  not  Powers,  but  he,  of  whom  John 
says:  'He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.'  .  .  . 
And  if  any  one  be  as  holy  as  Peter,  or  John,  he  is  baptized 
by  this  fire.  Then  will  come  the  Great  Baptist  (for  so  I  call 
him,  as  Gabriel  called  him,  saying,  '  He  shall  be  great,' 
Luke  1 :  15),  he  will  see  many  standing  before  the  entrance 
of  Paradise,  he  will  wave  the  sword  turning  every  way,  he 
will  say  to  them  on  the  right,  not  having  heinous  sins: 
*  Enter,  ye  of  good  courage,  who  fear  not  the  sword.'  For  I 
foretold  you:  'Behold  I  come  as  a  fire'  (Isaiah  56  :  15);  and 
by  Ezekiel  I  said:  'I  will  blow  upon  you  with  the  fire  of  my 
anger,  that  ye  may  be  melted  from  lead  and  iron '  (22  :  21). 
He  comes,  therefore,  as  a  consuming  fire,  he  burns  up  in  us 
the  lead  of  iniquity,  the  iron  of  sin,  and  makes  us  pure 
gold.  .  .  .  Each  one  of  us  is  burned  by  that  flaming  sword, 
not  burned  up.  .  .  .  That  is  one  kind  of  fire  by  which  in- 
voluntary and  undesigned  sins  are  burned  up,  and  that  is 
another  kind  of  fire  appointed  to  the  devil  and  his  angels." 
The  view  of  Ambrose  as  to  this  fire  baptism  is,  that  the 
condition  of  the  soul  is  by  it  thoroughly  changed  and  fitted 
for  Paradise.  That  this  fire  must  do  its  work  by  the  soul 
being  dipped  into  it  or  covered  over  by  it,  is  disproved,  so 
far  as  Ambrose  is  concerned,  by  its  being  eflected  by  a 
fiaming  sword,  which  can  neither  dip  nor  immerse. 

Origen. 

Origen  (HI,  704),  in  like  manner,  expounds  this  baptism 
by  a  reference  to  the  flaming  sword.  He  appeals,  also,  in 
illustration,  to  the  knife  and  cautery  used  in  surgery  for  the 
extirpation  of  a  cancer,  and  then  quotes :  "  I  came  not  to 
send  peace  on  the  earth,  but  a  sword ; "  and,  "  I  came  to 
send  fire  upon  the  earth."  These  passages  he  expounds 
thus:  "The  Saviour  uses  both  sword  and  fire"  (d  6(2pfea< 
quoe  non  poiueruni  Spiritus  Sancii  purificaiione  j^urgari)  "  and 
baptizes  those  sins  which  could  not  be  purged  by  the  puri- 
fication of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

This  exposition  settles  several  points:  1.  This  Greek 
scholar  did  not  believe,  that  a  baptism  required  (in  fact  or 


204  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

in  fiction)  a  dipping  or  an  immersing.  2.  He  did  believe, 
that  baptize  meant  to  purify.  3.  He  also  believed,  that  in 
this  fire  baptism  the  fire  was  nsed  as  an  agency  by  which 
the  baptism  (purification)  was  effected,  and  not  as  a  receiv- 
ing element  within  which  the  object  was  to  be  dipped  or 
covered  up. 

Tertullian. 

Tertullian  (HI,  1202)  says :  "  On  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  the  disciples  that 
they  might  be  baptized  by  him,  tongues  like  fire  were  seen 
resting  on  each  one,  that  it  might  be  evident  that  they 
(Spiritu  Sancto  et  in  igne  baptizatos)  were  baptized  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  by  fire." 

The  absence  of  the  preposition  with  "  Spiritu  Sancto," 
and  its  presence  with  "  igne,"  together  with  the  well-known 
facts  of  the  case,  show  that  Tertullian  had  no  thought  of  a 
baptism  carrying  the  Apostles  within  the  one  or  the  other. 

Heretical  Fire  Baptism. 
Irenseus    (1292)   quotes  from    Clement    of   Alexandria; 

"  Some,    as    Heracleon    says,    Ttup\     ra     wra     twv    (Tcppayi^niiivwv 

xarea-^jx^vavro''  (which  is  translated  by  a  commentator  on  Ter- 
tullian, ^'■igne  aures  siggillatorwn  (baptizatorum)  adurebani"), 
"  marked  with  fire  the  ears  of  the  sealed  (baptized)." 

Epiphanius  (I,  372)  says :  "  Those  who  are  under  Car- 
pocras  attach  a  seal  (^v  xauTrjpi)  by  a  red-hot  iron  to  the  right 
lobe  of  the  ear." 

Augustin  (de  Hfer.,  59)  says:  "The  Seleucian  heretics  {igne 
Baptismum  contidisse)  confer  baptism  by  fire." 

If  this  baptism  was  to  be  by  fire,  then,  these  heretics  did 
not  err  in  employing  bond  fide  fire,  instead  of  referring  it  to 
the  quasi  fire  of  Pentecost  as  do  our  Baptist  friends.  And 
it  seems  to  be  quite  as  clear,  that  the  theorists  must  accept, 
in  logical  consistency,  the  cauterization  of  the  ear  by  a  hot 
iron  as  an  equally  honest  fire  baptism  with  the  resting  of  a 
tongue  of  quasi  fire  over  the  head.  And  more,  the  reasoning 
by  which  they  seek  to  justify  a  dipping  into  water  as  a  substi- 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  205 

tute  for  baptism  in  water,  namely,  "  because  a  baptism  would 
drown,"  is  reasoning  equally  apologetic  for  these  ancient 
heretics.  If  water  baptism  will  drown,  fire  baptism  will 
burn  up.  If  to  escape  drowning  baptism  may  be  converted 
into  a  dipping,  then,  to  escape  burning  up,  baptism  may  be 
converted  into  a  cauterization  of  the  ear.  It  is  no  less  a 
heresy  to  convert  Bible  baptism  into  water  dipping,  than  it 
is  to  convert  baptism  "by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire"  into  a 
"  burning  of  the  right  lobe  of  the  ear."  The  two  heresies 
are  of  precisely  the  same  nature.  They  both  arise  from  a 
misapprehension  (equall}^  honest  no  doubt  in  both  cases)  of 
the  nature  of  Bible  baptism.  And  when  they  find  that  the 
true  idea  of  a  baptism  cannot  be  applied  to  their  misappre- 
hension without  destroying  life,  instead  of  abandoning  their 
error  (as  thus  proved  to  be  error),  they  carry  out  their  notion 
with  as  little  mischief  as  possible,  by  abandoning  the  Bible 
baptism,  and,  in  the  one  case,  dipping  the  upper  part  of  the 
body  into  water,  and,  in  the  other  case,  touching  the  end  of 
the  ear  with  a  burning  coal. 

Of  the  two  heresies  that  of  the  fire  Baptists  is  the  less ;  for 
there  is  no  evidence  that  they  regarded  the  fire  as  appointed 
to  be  the  element  within  which  the  baptism  was  to  take 
place,  but  only  as  a  symbol  means  by  which  the  true  baptism 
was  to  be  set  forth ;  while  the  water  Baptists  declare,  that 
water  is  that  within  which  the  baptism  is  commanded  to 
take  place,  and  that  such  withinness  is  the  baptism.  The 
fire  Baptists  are  justified,  under  their  view,  in  employing  a 
coal  of  fire,  but  the  water  Baptists  have  no  justification, 
under  their  view,  for  dipping  into  water.  They  say,  that 
God  does  clearly  and  imperatively  demand  a  baptism  in 
water ;  but  a  dipjnng  into  water  is  no  baptism  in  water.  If 
they  are  right  as  to  God's  command,  they  are  wrong  as  to 
their  obedience.  The  two  things  are  irreconcilable.  The 
one  or  the  other  must  be  given  up.  These  old  fire  Baptists 
had  a  baptism ;  but  it  was  heathenish,  not  Christian.  Our 
modern  water  Baptists  have  no  baptism;  whether  of  heathen- 
ism, or  of  Judaism,  or  of  Christianity.  They  refuse  water 
in  the  character  in  which  the  Bible  offers  it — a  symbol  agency^ 


206  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

and  they  dare  not  use  it  in  the  character  which  they  them- 
selves assign  to  it — a  mersing  element — and,  therefore,  change 
the  meaning  of  the  word  (i3a7rT{!^(o),  and  with  it  change  the 
ordinance  of  God,  substituting  for  it  an  ordinance  of  their 
own  devising;  an  ordinance  never  before  heard  of  either 
in  history  or  in  Scripture.  It  is  utterly  vain  to  appeal  to 
Patristic  water  covering  to  justify  such  a  baptism.  Dipping 
into  water  is  no  more  patristic  baptism  than  is  the  dipping 
of  white  linen  in  spring  water,  the  same  thing  as  covering 
the  same  white  linen  in  a  purple  dye.  Every  Patrist  that 
ever  lived  would  reject,  at  a  word,  the  notion,  that  a  dipping 
into  water  was,  or  was  of  the  essence  of,  Christian  baptism. 
Use  it  in  whatever  form  they  may,  they  do  universally  and 
always  use  it  as  the  means,  very  generally  in  the  faith,  that 
it  is  filled  with  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  so,  has 
power,  as  a  means,  to  baptize  the  soul;  which  soul  baptism, 
thoroughly  changing  its  condition  by  the  remission  of  sins, 
was,  in  their  view,  Christian  baptism.  Therefore  they  could 
and  did  baptize,  as  absolutely  and  as  literall}',  the  dying  by 
sprinkling  as  the  living  by  covering.  And  for  the  same 
reason,  the  "lobe  of  the  ear"  touched  by  a  burning  coal  was 
as  truly  a  fire  baptism  as  would  have  been  a  world  wrapped 
in  flames. 

Agency. 

The  essential  idea  in  every  baptism  is  complete  change  of 
condition.  In  every  baptism  there  is  some  agency  opera- 
tive to  eftect  the  demanded  condition  and  (where  the  agency 
alone  is  stated)  to  give  character  to  that  condition.  In  all 
the  quotations  made  there  is  a  universal  representation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,  as  agencies  eft'ecting  and  giving 
character  to  the  baptisms. 

I  will  add  a  few  more  references  of  a  similar  character. 

Gregory  Naz.  (II,  357):  "There  they  will  be  baptized,  tc5 
Ttupi,  Tu)  TsXeoTaiu)  /SaTzriff/iari,  by  fire,  the  final  baptism."  To 
translate  this  "  In  fire,  in  the  final  baptism,"  would  be 
beyond  all  justification. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (440) :  "  The  Saviour  baptized  the  Apos- 


BAPTISM   BY  FIRE.  207 

ties,  IIveufiaTt  "Ayiti)  xai  r.upi,  bj  the  Holy  Ghost  and  by  fire." 
This  is  of  the  same  clear  character  with  the  preceding. 

Didymus  (673):  "He  shall  baptize  joii  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire.  For  man  being  an  earthen  vessel  he  needs  first  the 
purification,  d-Ko  uSaToq,  by  water,  and,  then,  the  hardening 
and  perfecting,  votjtou  xopoq,  of  spiritual  fire  (for  God  is  a 
consuming  fire)."  The  genitive,  here,  indicates  the  source 
whence  the  baptizing  power  proceeds.  It  must  be  ever 
borne  in  mind,  that  in  the  view  of  these  writers  water  had 
a  power  to  baptize  entirely  distinct  from  its  receptive 
quality  as  a  fiuid. 

Macarius  jEgypius  {Hom.^  32) :  "  The  baptism  izopoq  xai 
meviiaroz  of  fire  and  of  Spirit  purifies  and  cleanses  the  pol- 
luted mind." 

{^Hom.,  47):    "  But  with  us  is  the  baptism   ayiou  r.veoiiaro'Z  xa\ 

7ry/5&?."  If  the  dative  form  of  this  phrase,  with  the  preposi- 
tion, was  local,  it  could  not  be  changed  for  this  genitive 
form ;  but  if  it  express  agency,  then  it  is  unexceptionable. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (X,  1187):  "Christ  says  to  John, 
'  Baptize  me  who  am  about  to  baptize  those  who  believe, 
di  odaTo<:,  xdi  meO/iaToq,  xai  nupoq,  through  water,  and  the  Spirit, 
and  fire,  u5arc,  by  ivater,  which  is  able  to  wash  away  the  filth 
of  sin,  Uveofmri,  by  the  Spirit,  who  can  make  the  earthly 
spiritual,  KupL,  by  fire,  whose  nature  it  is  to  burn  up  the 
thorns  of  sin.' " 

Here  we  have  the  genitive  with  8id  interchanged  with  the 
causal  dative  expressing  in  the  strongest  possible  manner, 
that  water,  fire,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  stand  related  to  bap- 
tism as  agencies. 

Classical  Use  of  the  Dative  for  Agency. 

As  the  varied  grammatical  forms,  Tzup\^  Tzupdq,  dizb  Tzupbq,  dcd 
Tzupdq,  indiflJerently  used  by  the  early  Christian  Greek  writers 
to  express  baptism  iv  nop},  show  that  the}^  understood  "fire" 
to  occupy  the  position  of  agency  eflecting  such  baptism,  so, 
the  use  of  the  dative  without  a  preposition,  and  of  the  geni- 
tive with  its  preposition,  by  Classic  Greek  writers,  vindicates 
the  correctness  of  their  view. 


208  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

In  order  that  this  may  be  made  clearly  apparent,  I  will 
present  all  the  passages  in  which  these  cases  appear  in 
Classic  and  other  writers  outside  of  the  Scriptures  (together 
with  their  translations  as  given  by  Dr.  Conant),  where  the 
Greek  verb  is  uncompounded. 

Libanius.  A  general  desertion  ivhereby  the  city  would  have  been 
baptized. 

Chrysostom.  Baptized  the  soul  of  the  poor  man  as  with  succes- 
sive waves. 

Basil.  Being  baptized  with  wine. 

Chrysostom.  Not  baj^tized  by  the  troubles  of  the  present  life. 
"  Baptized  by  none  of  the  present  evils. 

Heliodorus.  Baptized  by  the  calamity. 

Achilles  Tat.  To  be  baptized  with  such  a  multitude  of  evils. 
"  And  he,  baptized  by  anger. 

Evenus.  Baptized  in  Sleep,  neighbor  of  Death. 

JSeliodo^s.  When  midnight  had  baptized  the  city  in  sleep. 

Chrysostom.  Being  a  king  and  baptized  with  ten  thousand  cares. 

Libanius.  The  congregation  baptized  in  ignorance. 

Isidorus.  Most  men,  therefore,  baptized  in  ignorance. 

Clement.   More   senseless   than   stones   is   a    man    baptized    in 
ignorance. 

Chrysostom.  How  were  we  baptized  in  wickedness. 
"  Baptized  with  ten  thousand  sins. 

Justin  Mart.  Baptized  with  most  grievous  sins. 

Diodorus.  They  do  not  baptize  the  common  people  with  taxes. 

Plutarch.  Baptized  with  debts  amounting  to  fifty  millions. 

"         The  soul  is  baptized  by  such  (labors)  as  are  excessive. 

Philo.  As  though  the  reason  were  baptized  by  the  things  over- 
lying it. 

Plotinus.  Baptized  either  with  diseases  or  with  arts  of  magians. 

Chrysostom.  Neither  to  be  baptized  with  poverty,  nor  puffed  up 
with  wealth. 

Athenceus.  Flooded  with  vehement  woi'ds  and  baptized  with  un- 
diluted wine. 

Conon.  And  having  baptized  Alexander  with  much  wine. 

Proclus.  The  lo  Bacchus  baptized  icith  much  wantonness. 

None  of  these  baptisms  arc  regarded  by  Dr.  Conant  (not 
even  those  in  which  the  physical  element,  WinCy  appears)  as 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  209 

physical  baptisms.  lu  this  respect  they  are  like  the  bap- 
tisms under  consideration  =  baptisms  iv  nyeOfian,  iv  nupi.  I 
have  given,  I  believe,  all  of  this  class  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Conant  in  which  the  dative  without  a  preposition  appears. 
The  passages  in  all  are  twenty-six.  Of  this  number  six  are 
translated  by  in;  once,  "m  wickedness;"  twice,  "m  sleep;" 
thrice,  "in  ignorance."  Twenty  times  the  translation  is 
with,  by.  It  is  most  remarkable,  if  these  writers  wished  to 
give  these  baptisms  a  icithin  character,  that  they  should  have 
so  employed  the  dative  as  to  constrain  so  earnest  an  advo- 
cate for  that  idea  to  give  a  translation  from  which  wiihinness 
is  wholly  eliminated.  This  is,  confessedly,  the  case  in 
twenty  instances  out  of  twenty-six.  But  why  the  other  six 
or,  rather,  the  other  three  ("  wickedness,"  "  sleep,"  "  ignor- 
ance") are  not  included,  it  would  be  hard  to  tell.  If  bap- 
tism may  be  "6j/  care,"  why  not  by  "sleep?"  If  baptism 
may  be  "by  calamity,"  why  not  by  "ignorance?"  If  bap- 
tism may  be  "by  sin,"  why  not  by  "wickedness?" 

The  cases  in  which  the  genitive,  with  utto,  appears  are 
fewer  in  number. 

Libanius.  I  am  one  of  those  baptized  by  that  great  wave  (of 

calamity). 
Chariton.  Although  baptized  by  desire. 
Libanius,  Would  be  baptized  by  a  slight  addition. 
Flutarch.  We,  baptized  by  worldly  affairs. 
Chrysostom.  Should  be  baptized  by  the  annoyances  of  passion. 
Themistius.  Whenever  she  observed  me  baptized  by  grief. 
Josephus.  Baptized  by  drunkenness  into  stupor  and  sleep. 
Clement.  Baptized  by  drunkenness  into  sleep. 
Chrysostom.  Before  thou  art  deeply  baptized  by  this  intoxication. 
"  Job  was  neither  baptized  by  poverty  nor  elated  by 

riches. 

Professor  Harrison  (Greek  Prepositions  and  Cases,  p.  52) 
says :  "  The  genitive  case  has  one  uniform  ofiice,  namely, 
that  of  defining  a  preceding  term  or  statement  by  intro- 
ducing an  object  or  class  of  objects  to  which  specifically  it  is 
to  be  referred  for  a  more  exact  qualification  of  its  sense.  .  .  . 

14 


210  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

The  more  exact  definition  made  by  the  genitive  case  serves 
to  designate  what  particular  kind  or  variety  is  intended  of  a 
thing  capable  of  having  many  kinds  or  varieties." 

And  p.  468:  "The  proper  signification  of  vtz6  is  under; 
but  corresponds,  also,  to  the  English  by,  by  means  of,  intro- 
ducing the  person  by  whom  an  action  is  performed;  the 
person  'under'  whom,  that  is,  under  whose  active  power, 
anything  is  represented  as  occurring,  being  naturally  re- 
garded as  the  agent  'by'  whom  it  is  done.  E.  g.,  Herod. 
9,  98,  0-0  ■/.rjfjuy.o':  r.purjopsus,  '  he  proclaimed  by  a  herald,'  or 
'by  the  agency  of  a  herald.'  The  herald  'under'  whom, 
that  is  under  whom  considered  in  his  proper  character  and 
office,  the  proclamation  was  made,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
agent  of  the  proclamation.  As  in  Xen.  Cyrop.,  VI,  1,  35, 
Iddxput  u-o  ).u7nj^,  '  he  slied  tears  from  (under)  grief,'  the  na- 
ture of  the  feeling  expressed  by  Xo7:rj  is  such,  and  such  its 
obvious  natural  relation  to  ddxpua,  that,  when  it  is  said  that 
a  person  '  shed  tears  under  grief,'  it  is  plain  that  grief  is 
the  moving  cause  of  the  tears ;  so,  when  it  is  said  that  '  a 
proclamation  was  made  under  a  herald,'  it  is  readily  in- 
ferred, that  the  proclamation  represented  as  made  'under' 
him  was  made  '  by'  him,  or  by  his  agency." 

Under  the  principles  thus  laid  down  by  this  high  authority, 
these  genitives  define  tlie  baptisms  with  which  they  are  re- 
spectively associated,  while  the  preposition  indicates  that  the 
baptisms  are  effected  "  under"  =  "by  means  of,"  "  hy  reason 
of"  the  influence  or  agency  of  its  adjunct.  In  other  words, 
in  jdanTiZoiJ-ix'v  or.u  rr^q  636vrjq  the  nature  of  the  baptism  is  defined 
by  oduvj]':,  it  is  "  a  grief  baptism  ; "  and  the  cause  of  the  bap- 
tism we  find,  under  the  guidance  of  the  preposition,  in  that 
which  gives  character  to  the  baptism  =  ^nV/.  The  same  is 
true  of  anger,  sleep,  &c. 

Now,  these  baptisms  expressed  by  the  genitive  and  prepo- 
sition differ  in  form  only,  not  in  reality,  from  those  baptisms 
which  are  expressed  by  the  dative  without  a  preposition. 
Harrison  (p.  70)  says :  "  The  dative  (ablative)  has  other  sig- 
nifications diti'crent  from  that  which  belongs  to  the  dative 
proper,  and  incapable  of  being  reconciled  with  it.     In  the 


BAPTISM    BY    FIRE.  211 

second  class  of  examples  in  which  the  ablative  is  emploj^ed 
in  Greek,  it  may  be  called  the  iustrumentalis,  as  marking 
the  instrument,  means,  or  agent  by  which  an  action  is  per- 
formed" (p.  78). 

The  long  list  of  datives  which  has  been  given,  in  connec- 
tion with  baptisms,  clearly  belong  to  this  instrumentalis  class, 
and  do,  by  their  own  proper  force,  declare  that  the  baptisms 
are  effected  by  the  means  and  agencies  which  they  represent. 
The  truth  of  this  is  shown  by  Dr.  Conaut's  translations, 
which,  almost  without  exception,  express  agency.  And  it 
is  shown  by  the  identity  of  the  agencies  which  are  expressed 
under  the  two  grammatical  forms. 

How  is  it  possible  to  distinguish,  beyond  form,  in  the 
statements:  "Baptized  the  soul  of  the  poor  man  (by  unkind 
acts)  as  by  successive  waves"  (dative),  and,  "I  am  one  bap- 
tized by  that  great  wave  (of  calamity")  (gen.  with  prep.)? 
"Baptized  by  wantonness"  (dative),  and,  "Baptized  by  de- 
sire" (gen.  with  prep.)?  "Baptized  by  undiluted  wine"  (da- 
tive), and,  "  Baptized  by  drunkenness"  (gen.  with  prep.)? 
"Baptized  by  much  wine"  (dative),  and,  "Baptized  by  in- 
toxication" (gen.  with  prep.)?  "Baptized  by  poverty"  (da- 
tive), and,  "Baptized  by  poverty"  (gen.  with  prep.)? 

If  any  one  thinks  that  he  can  point  out  any  essential  dis- 
tinction, under  these  varying  grammatical  forms,  either  as 
to  the  nature  or  cause  of  the  baptisms,  the  way  is  open  for 
the  attempt. 

But  we  may  go  farther  and  confidently  affirm,  that  there 
are  phrases  in  which  iv  with  the  dative  appears,  by  which 
cause  is  evolved  as  truly  and  as  legitimately  as  in  phrases 
which  exhibit  the  simple  dative  or  the  genitive  with  its 
preposition.  And  this  is  sustained  by  Classical  as  well  as 
by  Scriptural  authority. 

Harrison  (p.  250)  says:  "'£v  with  the  ablative  (locativus) 
case  expresses  that  on  which  a  thing  depends,  or  in  the 
power  of  which  it  lies,  where  in  English  we  use  such  phrases 
as  '  in  the  hands  of,'  '  in  the  power  of.'  ^.  g.,  (Edip.  Tyr., 
314,  iv  (Tu)  latj-ev,  '  on  you  we  depend,'  '  we  are  in  your  hands;' 
properly,  '  we,  as  regards  our  salvation,  are  in  you,'  that  is, 


212  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

in  the  condition  afforded  by  your  personal  qualities,  your 
ability  and  willingness  to  save.  It  is  not  intended  to  be 
said  literally  that  we  are  '  in'  or  '  within '  you,  but  the  per- 
son is  employed  for  the  properties  belonging  to  him,  and 
that  may  be  the  ground  of  confidence  for  those  seeking 
safety"  (p.  246).  "  (Edip.  Col.,  247,  ^i^  mv  wq  hd,  y.sqi'Ja,  '  we 
depend  on  you,  as  on  a  god,'  literally  (254),  '  we  lie  or  are 
placed  in  .  .  .  namely,  in  you,'  that  is,  '  in  your  power.'  " 

Both  these  passages  are  quite  parallel  with  those  passages 
of  the  gospel  in  which  the  Pharisees  declare  that  Christ  is 
iv  /?££/l^£/3ot}/l,  "  in  his  hands,"  "  acts  under  his  control;  "  and 
in  which  Christ  claims  to  be  h  nveu/iart  0eod,  "  in  the  Spirit 
of  God,"  "  to  act  under  his  control."  And  all  these  passages 
are  parallel  with  the  passage  under  consideration,  'Ju-o?  h 
Ilveoimzi  'Ayioj  xai  nup\.  As  being  in  the  condition  represented 
by  this  phraseology  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  acts  in  the  execu- 
tion of  his  baptism;  acts  in  the  double  character  of  Saviour 
and  Judge.  (See,  as  parallel,  2  Thess.  2 :  7-9.)  It  is  I  think 
evident,  that  under  these  diverse  forms  there  is  evolved  the 
common  idea  of  power  to  effect  baptism,  whether  the  form 

be  l^e^anTttrfiivov  ocvm,  j3el3anT[iT/iivov  ev  dcvw,  or  [ie[ianriaivov  ond  oivou. 

But  suppose  that  the  theory  insists  on  "  one  meaning  through 
all  Greek  literature,  alike  in  physical  and  in  metaphorical 
uses"  (Conant,  p.  60),  and  declares,  that  the  first  form  rep- 
resents a  man  "  in  a  wine  river  flowing  with  a  strong  current 
by  which  he  is  swept  away  from  sobriety  into  the  gulf  of  in- 
toxication ; "  while  the  second  form  represents  a  man  in  a 
wine  pool  laboring  under  a  heavy  burden  by  which  he  slowly 
sinks  until  he  rests  m  the  depths  of  drunkenness;  and  the 
third  form  represents  him  in  a  wine  ocean  deeply  stirred  by 
a  convivial  tempest  until  some  huge  wine  billow  falls  upon 
him  bearing  him  down  under  its  power  into  the  lowest  caverns 
of  drunken  stupor;  what,  after  all  this  peculiar  exegetical 
wisdom,  is  the  conclusion  of  the  matter?  Why,  nothing 
more  or  less  than  that,  under  all  these  forms  there  is  a  rep- 
resentation of  the  power  of  wine  to  make  drunk.     And  so, 

under  all  the  forms,  ft£j3aTTTt<Tfj.iv(i'y  T:up\  nvsoiian  ;  ftsiSaTTTitTfxivav  iv 
Ttupl^  iv  Uvsup-aTi;  (iej^aKTifffJiivov  nupoq,  oltzo,  uttu,  Slo.  Ttupoq]  (iz^aTzziffixivov 


BAPTISM   BY   FIRE.  213 

nveofiaToq,  and,  uno,  dtd  nvsufiarot: ;  there  18  nothing,  more  or  less, 
than  a  representation  of  the  power  of  fire  and  the  Spirit 
to  baptize  =  to  thoroughly  change  the  condition  of  their 
objects  according  to  their  respective  characteristics.  It  is 
remarkable,  that  while  Dr.  Conant  translates  these  cases 
thirty  times  out  of  thirty-six,  luith,  by,  yet  he  writes  over 
them  as  a  heading,  "  To  plunge,  to  immerse,  to  whelm  (as 
in  ingulfing  floods)  in  calamities,  in  ruin,  in  troubles,  in 
cares,  in  poverty,  in  debts,  in  stupor,  in  sleep,  in  ignorance, 
in  pollution,  &c." 

That  is  to  say.  What  in  the  translation  is  made  active 
agency  to  efiect  the  baptism,  is,  in  the  heading,  converted 
into  a  receiving  element — an  "  ingulfing  flood."  The  hard 
demand  of  theory  wrote  the  heading.  The  inexorable  re- 
quirement of  fact  made  the  translation.  Dr.  Conant  the 
Scholar  is  in  severe  antagonism  with  Dr.  Conant  the  Baptist. 

The  Nature  of  this  Baptizing  Power. 

It  being  in  proof,  1.  That  iv  is  used  in  the  Classics,  and 
abundantly  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense  loith,  by;  2. 
That,  in  connection  with  persons  and  things  in  which  reside 
power  or  influence,  it  is  used  to  give  development  to  such 
power  or  influence  (such  usage  being  profoundly  character- 
istic of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  revealed  in  the 
phrase  h  Ilveufiarc  with  its  variations);  3.  That  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is,  thus,  represented  as  being  "without  measure" 
£v  Uveufiart  'Aycu)  and  acting  under  the  influence  consequent 
upon  such  condition  in  effecting  the  salvation  of  his  people; 
4.  That  he  is  also  represented  as  a  Judge  {iv  izupi  (pkoydq)  "  in 
flaming  flre"  destroying  his  enemies;  5.  That  the  phrase 
[ianTiZu)  iv  has  no  Classical  usage  for  denoting  the  execution 
of  a  baptism;  it  is  of  necessary  consequence  in  proof,  That 
the  power  to  baptize,  under  consideration,  is  of  such  a  nature 
as  may  proceed  from  "  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire."  The 
general  character  of  this  baptism,  beyond  all  rational  con- 
troversy, is  that  of  purification.  And  this  is  all  that  could 
be  fairly  expected  to  be  announced  by  the  Forerunner  as  the 
baptism  of  the  Coming  One.     It  was  not  timely  for  him  to 


214  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

enter  into  more  specific  characteristics.  Our  Lord  himself 
was  compelled,  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  to  veil  the 
profoundest  characteristics  of  his  mission;  how  mnch  more, 
then,  must  he  do  so  who  is  only  preparing  the  way  of  the 
Lord. 

There  is,  however,  somewhat  of  specialty  thrown  into  this 
Messiah  baptism  by  the  association  o^rzupl  with  Uveop-art  which 
claims  attention. 

Among  various  interpretations  suggested  are  the  follow- 
ing: 1.  Literal  fire.  2.  The  firelike  tongues  of  Pentecost. 
3.  The  sufferings  of  Christians,  intense  and  purifying  as  by 
fire.     4.  The  sufferings  of  lost  souls  in  eternal  fire. 

The  first  of  these  interpretations  may  be  dismissed  with 
the  suggestion,  that  literal  fire  cannot  purify  the  soul,  and, 
as  a  symbol,  it  can  have  no  place,  for  the  baptism  is  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  does  not  baptize  by  symbol,  but  in 
reality.  The  second  interpretation  has  but  the  semblance 
of  a  claim  to  a  hearing.  The  "firelike"  tongues  were  not 
fire,  and  therefore  are  out  of  the  question,  unless  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture  we  are  at  liberty  to  take  away 
reality  and  substitute  semblance.  Besides,  these  "  tongues" 
had  nothing  to  do  with  effecting  the  baptism;  they  were  but 
symbols,  as  "  tongues,"  of  the  most  outstanding  feature  of 
the  baptism  (the  power  of  speaking  in  diverse  languages), 
while  their  "firelike"  character  symbolized  the  glowing 
nature  of  the  utterances;  but  the  "fire"  of  Christ's  baptism 
is  executory  of  the  baptism.  It  can  only  find  its  represent- 
ative in  fire  most  real  and  most  intense. 

The  notion  of  Dr.  Carson  and  friends,  that  "  they  were 
literally  covered  with  the  appearance  (!)  of  wind  and  fire," 
belongs  to  that  class  of  eccentricities  sometimes  perpetrated 
by  the  human  intellect,  but  never  witnessed  by  sober  on- 
lookers without  commingled  feelings  of  sadness  and  humili- 
ation. The  third  interpretation  which  identifies  this  "fire" 
with  the  sufferings  of  Christians  cannot  be  accepted,  because 
sufferings  have  no  essential  power  to  purify,  and  if  they  had, 
could  never  be  associated  with  the  II0I3'  Ghost  as  a  joint 
purifying  power;    while  without  an  inherent  power  they 


BAPTISM    BY   FIRE.  215 

could  not  be  disjoined  from  the  Holy  Ghost  who  alone  gives 
efficiency  to  anything  to  purify  the  soul.  The  fourth  inter- 
pretation is  substantially  correct,  but  is  too  limited  by  a 
restriction  to  "  eternal  fire." 

A  satisfactory  interpretation  can  only  be  reached  by  a  just 
determination  of  the  persons  represented  by  vfiaq.  If  this 
word  is  to  be  resolved  into  individual  souls  to  each  of  whom 
is  to  be  applied  the  purifying  baptism  "  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire,"  it  is  difficult  to  separate  it  from  theological  error. 
Suffering  disjoined  from  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  purify.  To 
say,  "It  is  not  meant  to  disjoin  them,"  is  met  by  the  in- 
quiry, Why,  then,  disjoin  in  statement  what  must  be  con- 
joined in  interpretation  ?  But  if  this  pronoun  represent  a 
collective  body,  whom  John  addresses  as  representing  the 
collective  Jewish  people,  then,  all  difficulty  is  removed. 
This  pronoun,  then,  becomes  a  threshing-floor  Avhere  is 
massed  together  the  wheat  and  the  chaflT,  and  which,  as  a 
mass,  is  to  be  purified  by  the  fan  and  the  fire. 

John  declares,  that  the  Jewish  people,  as  a  collective  body, 
was  to  be  purified  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire — by  redemp- 
tion and  by  judgment,  which  beginning  on  earth  would 
reach  into  the  ages  of  eternity.  This  twofold  representation 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  a  Saviour  and  a  Judge  is  the 
representation  met  with  everywhere  in  the  Scripture.  He 
is  the  Lamb  of  God  and  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
As  the  Forerunner  proclaimed  to  the  Jewish  masses  Christ, 
their  baptizer  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  so,  they  who  fol- 
low after  Him  who  has  come,  now  preach  to  the  masses  of 
the  Gentiles  that  same  Christ  as  their  baptizing  Redeemer 
and  Judge.  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  by  Him  who 
baptizes  iv  nveu/ian  'Ay{u) ;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned  by  Him  who  baptizes  iv  nupV  This  baptism,  then, 
in  the  simplest  language,  denotes  the  purification  of  the 
Jewish  people  (and  so,  also,  of  all  others)  by  the  twofold 
operation  of  mercy  and  judgment. 

What  a  dipping  has  to  do  with  this  baptism,  they  who 
have  a  more  fruitful  imagination  than  myself  may  be  able 
to  determine.    We,  rejecting  the  theory  "  of  a  definite  act," 


216  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

behold  in  this  twain-one  baptism,  as  on  every  page  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  majestic  moving  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
a  Divine  Agent,  among  the  souls  of  men,  baptizing  the 
chosen  ones  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  precious  blood  of 
atonement,  while  in  the  background  there  are  the  lurid 
gleamings  of  those  fires  by  which  the  righteous  Judge  of 
all  will  finally  baptize  the  impenitent.  The  purging  of  our 
world  from  sin  is  effected  only  by  the  conjoint  baptism  "  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire." 


THE    PERSONAL    BAPTISM   OP   JOHN. 

Matthew  3  :  14. 
"I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?" 
'"^^EycD  ^psiav  eyu)  VTzb  gov  ^aTtrcrrOr^vai,  xai  ah  ipx^j  7:pd<;  fJ-i)^^ 

Illustrative  of  John's  Knowledge  of  the  Word. 

It  is  important  to  show  that  John  was  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  this  Greek  word  and  did  familiarly  use  it  in 
other  than  its  primary  and  physical  applications. 

Does  John,  here,  use  ^a-KziZco  in  its  primary  sense  and  with 
a  physical  application  ?  A  negative  answer  must  be  given 
to  this  question. 

I  am  not  aware  that  any  friend  of  the  theory  has  ever  sug- 
gested the  idea  that  John  expressed  his  sense  of  a  "need" 
for  being  dipped  into  the  Jordan  by  the  Saviour.  Many  of 
this  class  sadly  err  as  to  the  mode,  and  nature,  and  power  of 
water  baptism ;  but  John  does  not  belong  to  them.  Roger 
Williams  and  others  who  have,  at  different  times  and  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world,  entertained  the  idea  that  a  covering 
of  the  body  with  water  was  essential  to  baptism,  have  secured 
this  end  for  themselves  either  by  walking  into  the  water  "  to 
a  convenient  depth  "  and  dipping  the  remainder  of  the  body, 
themselves,  or  by  getting  some  one  else  to  do  it  for  them. 

There  is  no  account  of  John's  thus  baptizing  himself,  nor 


THE  PERSONAL   BAPTISM   OF   JOHN.  217 

can  he  be  understood  as,  now,  asking  the  Saviour  to  do  it 
for  him.  He  cannot  be  so  understood,  because  John  knew 
that  for  one  person  to  baptize  another  in  water  must,  by  the 
simple  force  of  its  terms,  destroy  life ;  and  because  he  knew 
that  water  baptism  was  but  a  symbol  baptism,  and  that  it  was 
not  the  office  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  deal  with  symbols, 
but  to  work  out  and  to  give  the  realities.  This  he  had  taught 
when  he  said,  "  He  shall  baptize  by  the  Ploly  Ghost  and  fire." 
This  was  a  real  not  a  symbol  baptism.  It  was  this  baptism 
of  which  John  feels  his  "  need."  He  had  been  baptized  in 
infancy,  "filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  from  his  birth-hour; 
but  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  manifold  in  its  nature, 
and  John  amid  the  responsibilities  of  his  public  ministry 
may  feel  the  need  of  a  special  baptism;  or  his  language  may 
be  understood  as  declarative  of  his  profound  sense  of  de- 
pendence for  all  fitness  for  his  work,  whether  received  in  the 
past  or  to  be  received  in  the  future,  on  his  divine  Lord. 

John  did  not  feel  any  "  need"  for  water  baptism  for  him- 
self as  God's  minister.  And  had  Rosier  Williams  and  others, 
who  inaugurated  a  momentary  covering  of  the  body  with 
water,  been  called  of  God  to  this  work,  they  would  have  un- 
derstood that  they  who  are  called  of  God  to  such  service  do 
not  need  to  receive  the  rite  at  the  hand  of  themselves  or  of 
others,  any  more  than  John  or  Peter. 

But  this  baptism  desired  by  John  for  his  own  spirit,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  gives  a  sore  test  as  to  the  merits  of  the  doc- 
trine— Every  baptism,  not  physical,  is  still  to  be  understood 
as  a  "  plunging  in  ingulfing  floods."  In  what  "  ingulfing 
floods"  are  we  to  picture  John,  as  plunged,  in  receiving 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  human  intellect  will  not 
only  bear,  but  will,  most  strangely,  load  itself  with  the  most 
unbearable  burdens. 

John  could  not  have  desired  water  baptism  under  any  idea 
of  spiritual  power  being  attached  to  it.  If  he  had  believed 
that  the  mere  administration  of  the  rite  washed  away  sin 
from  the  soul,  he  would  have  welcomed  and  not  driven  away 
the  Pharisee  and  the  Sadducee  in  all  their  unrepented  sins. 

Dr.  Conant  gives  as  a  reason  for  expunging  "  baptize " 


218  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

from  tlie  Englisli  Bible,  that  it  fosters  "  the  idea  in  many 
minds  of  an  inherent  virtue  in  the  rite." 

I  am  afraid  that  the  getting  rid  of  this  word  from  our 
Bibles  will  not  suffice  for  getting  rid  of  such  error  from 
many  minds.  There  are  "many  minds"  which  have  sub- 
stituted, very  effectually,  a  dipping  for  a  baptism,  who,  not- 
withstanding, nay,  who  thereby  have  become  entangled  in 
the  notion  of  "an  inherent  virtue  in  the  rite." 

This  statement  will  be  made  sufficiently  plain  by  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  a  tract  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  mem- 
ber of  my  congregation,  and  just  now  handed  to  me  while 
visiting  in  her  sick-room. 

"  Baptism." 

"  1.  The  word  Baptism  is  Greek  and  signifies  a  dipping. 
"  2.  There  is  but  one  Baptism,  for  Paul  so  says,  Eph.  4  :  5. 
"  3.  That  one  Baptism  is  in  water ;  so  says  Peter,  Acts  10  :  47. 
"4.  This  one  Baptism  in  water,  is  a  ftwrmL  Eom.  G:4;  Coles.  2:12. 
"  5.  A  man  is  not  in  Christ  before  he  is  baptized,  for  we  are 

plainly  taught  that  we  must  be  baptized  into  him.  Galat. 

3:27. 
"  6.  Baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past.  Acts  2  :  88. 
"7.  Baptism  like  all  God's  commands  is  essential  to  salvation. 

1  Pet.  3:21." 

The  italics  and  capitals  are  all  as  they  stand  in  the  tract. 
These  extracts  speak  for  themselves.  It  is  very  far  from  my 
purpose  to  controvert  them.  Thej^  are  all  false  in  the  sense 
intended,  and  yet  all  susceptible  of  a  specious  vindication 
from  Scripture  by  verbal  and  isolated  quotations.  It  is  evi- 
dent, that  the  "  remission  of  sins  by  water  dipping"  is  just 
as  easy  of  proof,  by  these  theologians,  as  is  the  "dipping" 
and  the  "  burial."  And  the  proof  for  the  latter  is  worth 
just  as  much  as  is  the  proof  for  the  former;  no  more.  Dr. 
Conaut  will  see  that  the  substitution  of  "dipping"  for  bap- 
tism will  not  free  "many  minds  from  the  idea  that  there  is 
inherent  virtue  in  the  rite." 

I  only  add,  that  the  forefront  announcement,  "  The  wcHpd 
Baptism  is  Greek  and  signifies  a  dipinng,'^  is  a  statement 


THE   PERSONAL   BAPTISM   OF  JOHN.  219 

whicli  has  been  flung  in  the  face  of  the  Christian  world,  as 
absolute  truth,  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  but  which 
its  friends  are  now  as  loth  to  whisper  in  the  chamber  as  they 
once  were  zealous  to  proclaim  it  on  the  housetops.  Yet, 
strange  to  say,  while  most  anxious  to  get  rid  of  it,  they  are 
just  as  anxious  to  keep  it.  They,  therefore,  resort  to  a  new 
mode  of  spelling.  And  old  "  dipping"  is  made  to  do  valiant 
service  under  the  new  spelling  immersion! 

If  John  the  Baptist  had  been  such  a  Baptist  as  these  Bap- 
tists, then,  most  assuredly,  he  would  have  besought  at  the 
hands  of  the  Lord  a  dipping  into  water  in  order  to  secure, 
"  in  the  only  way,"  union  "  into  Christ,"  "  the  remission  of 
sins,"  and  "  the  salvation"  of  his  soul.  But  such  is  not  the 
"need"  which  he  expressed.  He  longs  to  be  baptized  by  one 
who  is  clothed  with  all  the  influence  and  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  be  brought  under  the  full  influence  and  assimilating 
power  of  this  Divine  Agent.  But  in  such  baptism  a  dipping 
or  a  covering,  in  fact,  is  impossible.  If  it  should  be  said, 
"  No  claim  is  made  for  either  of  these  things  in  fact,  but 
only  in  imagination,"  then  we  ask,  Of  what  use  to  John 
was  a  mere  dipping  or  covering?  If,  again,  it  should  be  re- 
plied, "  It  is  not  a  mere  dipping  or  covering  that  is  contem- 
plated, but  the  effects  consequent  upon  a  dipping  into  or 
covering  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  then,  again,  we  reply  with 
Dr.  Carson,  "  There  is  a  radical  difference  between  the  act 
of  dipping  or  covering  and  the  effects  consequent  upon  such 
acts."  If  it  is  the  effect,  and  not  the  act,  which  is  contem- 
plated by  the  word,  then  the  word  has  undergone  an  essen- 
tial change  of  meaning,  in  which  case  the  demand  upon  the 
imagination  to  conceive  of  the  act  as  done  is  lawless,  and, 
if  it  were  possible,  is  worthless,  and  must  be  rejected  as  rub- 
bish, in  order  that  we  may  reach  what  is  beyond,  and  is  the 
truth  in  view,  namely,  effect.  There  is  no  such  roundabout 
and  essentially  valueless  statement  made  by  John.  He  de- 
clares his  "  need  "  of  being  baptized,  brought  under  the  puri- 
fying power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  one  whose  character  as 
"Mightier  than  I"  is  displayed  by  the  gift  of  such  divine 
influence.     John  knew  the  meaning  of  ^anTi^uj. 


220  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

In  full  harmony  with  this  view  we  have  the  following 
comment  on  the  passage  by  Hippolytus  (X,  856),  "  BdrcTiaov 
lis  TU)  Tzupi  rr;q  dsoTrjroq — Baptize  me  by  the  fire  of  the  divine 
nature;  why  dost  thou  desire  the  water?  ^wtktov  tm  Uveviian. 
Illumine  me  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  why  dost  thou  wait  on  the 
creature  ? "  Can  this  use  of  the  simple  dative  be  rationally 
translated,  "  Dip  me  w?,  cover  me  for  a  moment  in  the  fire 
of  the  divine  nature?"  Must  we  also  translate,  "Illumine 
me  in  the  Holy  Ghost?"  In  the  petition  for  "illumina- 
tion" there  is  no  request  for  "a  definite  act"  to  be  per- 
formed, but  for  a  condition  to  be  efiected;  and  in  like  man- 
ner, in  the  petition  "Baptize  me"  there  is  no  request  for 
the  performance  of  "  a  definite  act,"  but  for  a  condition  of 
purification  to  be  efiected.  "  The  fire  of  the  divine  nature" 
is  not  a  receiving  element  within  which  an  act  is  to  be  per- 
formed, or  in  which  a  covering  is  to  take  place,  but  it  is 
an  agency  by  which  a  change  of  condition  is  to  be  accom- 
plished. And,  in  like  manner,  "the  Holy  Ghost"  is  not  a 
person,  or  place,  or  sphere  within  which  "  illumination  "  is 
to  take  place,  but  Light  by  which  John  was  to  be  enlight- 
ened. In  every  aspect  in  which  we  can  look  at  the  subject 
the  theory  breaks  down. 


PATRISTIC   VIEW   OF   THE  ACCOMPLISHMENT   OF   THIS   BAPTISxM. 
"  ^ Ei3a~Ti(T0yj  ^fcudwrjq  rijv  ^^'tpo-   £7:i0s\<;   im   ttjv   Os'iav   rou  dear^oroo 

"  John  was  baptized  by  putting  his  hand  upon  the  divine  head 
of  his  Master,  and  by  his  own  blood." — John  of  Damascus,  I, 
261,  Paris  (see  Beecher,  194). 

A  passage  like  this  takes  hold  of  the  pillars  of  the  theory, 
as  with  the  strong  arms  of  Manoah's  son,  and  shakes  it  down 
into  hopeless  ruin. 


THE   PERSONAL   BAPTISM   OF  JOHN.  221 

John  was  baptized  by  touching  the  head  of  his  Lord. 
"Where  was  the  dipping  or  covering  ?  "  "Where  ?  why, 
plainly  enough  in  the  descending  and  ascending  of  John's 
hand  there  was  a  dipping,  and,  if  he  kept  his  hand  on  '  long 
enough,'  virtue  could  flow  along  it  until  John  should  be 
covered  by  it.  Can  anything  be  plainer  ? "  No,  nothing ; 
the  excellent  virtue  of  the  theory  could  not  be  made  plainer. 
And  yet  it  is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  such  plain  passages 
are  never  adduced  by  the  theory  to  illustrate  and  enforce  its 
claims.  In  this  respect  it  does  not  follow  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  old  Greeks.  They  did  not  hesitate,  very  freely  and 
very  frequently,  to  speak  of  baptism  as  efiected  by  the  touch 
of  the  hand.     In  witness  of  this  take  the  following : 

Acti  Sancti  Thomce. — "  AVt  iT:\ds\^  irr^  dur^  rijv  ^elpa  durou  iacppdyiffsv 
duTTjV  ^£C  ovo/ia  Tzarpoq  xai  ocou  xai  dycou  Trvsufiazo';."  "And  putting 
his  hand  upon  her  he  sealed  her  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  many  others  were 
sealed  with  her.  But  the  Apostle  ordered  his  deacon  to  spread 
a  table" — for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  com- 
mon after  baptism. 

As  to  the  use  of  "seal"  and  "sealing,"  for  "baptism" 
and  "  baptizing,"  all  will  admit  the  correctness  of  the  state- 
ment made  in  a  note  by  the  Editor:  " Antiquissima  enim 
est  atque  frequentissima  ilia  baptismi  et  rituum  baptismalium 
appellatio  apud  ecclesiae  catholicse  doctores.  Such  appellation 
is  a  most  ancient  and  most  frequent  designation  of  baptism 
and  the  rites  of  baptism  among  the  teachers  of  the  Catholic 
church."  A  fuller  form  is  sometimes  used — "  sealed  by 
baptism."  This  would  naturally  take  an  abbreviated  form 
as  above. 

This  passage  presents  precisely  the  same  form  of  expres- 
sion, as  to  the  manner  in  w^hich  baptism  was  effected,  as  in 
the  case  of  John  *'  touching  the  divine  head  of  his  Lord  with 
his  hand." 

Firmilian. — "  Paulus  eos  qui  ab  Joanne  baptizati  fuerant,  pri- 
usquam  missus  Sj^iritus  sanctus  a  Domino,  baptizavit  denuo 
spiritali  Baptismo   et  sic   eis   manum  imposuit  ut  acciperent 


222  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

Spiritum  sanctam;  Paul  baptized  those  who  had  been  baptized 
by  John  (before  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  sent  by  the  Lord) 
again,  by  Spiritual  Baptism,  and  put  his  hand  upon  them  that 
they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Is  this  "baptism  by  the  hand"  another  kind  of  immer- 
sion to  be  expounded  after  the  model  of  that  "  immersion 
in  a  house  full  of  sound  like  wind?" 

Anonymi  Liber. — This  anonymous  writer,  whose  work  on 
"Re-baptism"  is  contained  in  the  third  volume  of  Tertul- 
lian,  after  stating  that  all  the  disciples  were  baptized,  having 
been  baptized  by  water,  were  baptized  again  after  the  resur- 
rection, by  the  Holy  Spirit,  says,  that  others  also  may  be 
baptized  again,  "  with  Spiritual  baptism,  that  is  by  the  im- 
position of  hands  and  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost — Baptis- 
mate  spiritali,  id  est  manus  impositione  episcopi  et  Spiritus 
sancti  subministratione"  (1195). 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  quotations.  It  is  beyond 
dispute,  that  the  placing  of  the  hand  upon  the  head  was 
competent  to  effect  spiritual  baptism.  There  is  a  parallel 
and  complementary  passage,  however,  which  is  not  without 
interest,  and  I  give  it. 

Hippolytus. — 'ExXivev  rijv  xe<pa?.rjv  durou  j3a7:Tta0r,vai  uno  ^Icudwou  (X, 
856).     "  He  bowed  his  head  to  be  baptized  b}^  John." 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  in  the  days  of  their 
writers  baptism  was  administered  by  the  hand  of  the  bap- 
tizer  being  placed  upon  the  head  of  the  baptized  person. 
If  it  should  be  said,  that  it  was  put  upon  the  head  to  press 
it  down  into  tlie  water,  then,  1.  We  encounter  the  assertion 
of  Dr.  Carson,  that  "to  press  down"  is  not  to  baptize.  2. 
To  baptize  by  pressing  down  the  head  is  not  the  baptism 
practiced  under  the  theory.  3.  This  baptism  by  placing  the 
hand  upon  the  head  was  practiced  in  unnumbered  cases 
when  there  was  no  water  present,  more  or  less,  into  which 
to  press  down  the  head. 

No  solution  of  these  hand  baptisms  can  be  given  without 
an  overthrow  of  the  theory. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  BY  HIS  BLOOD.        223 

John  wished  to  be  baptized  in  that  only  way  in  which  his 
Lord  baptized — by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  was,  indeed,  true 
that  he  had  been  baptized  in  infancy  (Luke  1 :  15);  but  that 
baptism  which  had  conferred  upon  him  "the  Spirit  and 
power  of  Elias"  might  now  be  magnified  by  the  bestowal 
of  a  double  measure  of  the  spirit  of  the  ascended  prophet. 
And  while  John's  word  was  apparently  not  met,  yet  it  was 
really  granted  (if  we  may  trust  to  John  of  Damascus),,  with- 
out a  dipping,  by  his  obediently  laying  his  hand  upon  the 
head  of  his  divine  Master.   A  strange  baptism  for  the  theory. 


THE   BAPTISM    OF   JOHN   BY   HIS    BLOOD. 

'EjSaTZTiffOrj  VwavvTjc xou  toj  idiu)  ciiixaTt. 

"John  was  baptized,  also,  by  his  own  blood." 

The  utter  impossibility  of  dipping  John  into  his  own  blood 
or  of  covering  him  in  it,  reminds  us  of  that  analogous  case 
of  impossibility  in  the  dipping  of  the  lake  in  the  blood  of  a 
frog.  Dr.  Carson  declared  such  a  conception  "  monstrous," 
and  a  piece  of  extravagance  beyond  tlie  bounds  of  all  ra- 
tional rhetoric.  lie  unhesitatingly  declared,  that  the  pas- 
sage IjddnTSTu  8"  ac/iazc  Xt/ivrj  was,  of  itsclf,  sufiicient  to  establish 
a  secondary  meaning  for  jSaTtrw,  and  to  prove,  that  the  lake 
was  not  "dipped  in  blood,"  as  Gale  affirmed  to  be  the  literal 
statement,  but  was  "dyed  by  blood.''  If  there  is  any  value 
in  the  reasoning  on  this  case  (and  all  Baptists  now  accept 
it),  then,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  it  is  monstrous  and  intoler- 
able rhetoric  to  dip  or  cover  John  in  his  own  blood ;  and 

i^amiadt}  'Itudyvrjt;  zu)  Idiu)  aiiiart,  is  "  of  itself  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish a  secondary  meaning  for"  /iaTrr^w,  "and  to  prove,  that 
John  was  not  dipped  or  covered  in  his  own  blood,  but  was" 
PURIFIED  "  by  his  own  blood." 

The  phraseology  in  which  this  blood  baptism  is  expressed 
by  Patristic  writers  is  instructive  and  confirmatory  of  this 
conclusion. 


224  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 


Patristic  Blood  Baptism. 

Gregory  Nazianzen. — "Hdet  yap  rw  fiaprupiu)  ISartTtffirjffS/xevo';.  "I 
have  need  to  be  baptized  bj^  thee  :  Add  this,  and  for  thee.  For 
he  knew  that  he  would  be  baptized  by  martyrdom"  (352). 

How  can  a  dipping  or  a  covering  be  secured  within 
"  mai'tyrdom  ? "  "And  what  says  Jesus?  'Suffer  it  to  be 
so  now.'  For  he  knew  that  after  a  little  while"  (dyrd? 
^ar.rifTujv  BanrcarTjv)  "  he  would  baptize  the  Baptist."  This 
does  not  say,  that  "  he  would  dip  the  Dipper,"  or  "  cover 
the  Coverer,"  or  "  put  in  and  take  out  Ilim  who  was  the 
Putter  in  and  Taker  out,"  but  (as  the  language  of  Gregory 
Nazianzen  can  only  mean,  as  has  been  incontestably  proved 
in  Judaic  Baptism),  "  He  would  purify  the  Purifier."  And 
this  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  Patristic  doctrine  as  to 
the  eminently  purifying  character  of  martyrdom. 

Cyril  of  Jer^isalem. — 'Oc  fj.iv  iv  xatpoU  hp-q^^-qz  iv  vdan  jSaTTTifTdaifTtv, 
6i  dk  iv  xaipu'ie;  duoyp.wv  iv  ulxtiotiz  aip.affi  ^aTznaSwai.  "  He  that  doCS 
not  receive  baptism,  has  not  salvation,  except  martyrs,  only, 
who  receive  the  kingdom  without  water.  For  the  Saviour  re- 
deeming the  world  hj  the  cross,  and  wounded  in  his  side,  shed 
forth  water  and  blood ;  that  some  in  times  of  peace,  might  be 
baptized  with  water,  and  others,  in  times  of  persecution,  might 
be  baptized  with  their  own  blood.  For  the  Saviour  calls  mar- 
tyrdom baptism,  saying,  '  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink 
of,  and  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?'  " 
(440.) 

Does  the  Saviour  call  "  martyrdom  "  a  dipping,  a  covering 
over,  an  immersion?  The  theory  is  driven,  at  every  turn, 
into  the  greatest  possible  extravagance.     Again,  the  theory 

insists  upon  it  that  Cyril  by  iv  xacpolq  icp-qvrj<;  ^v  uSan  i3anTiff6u)(TcVy 

affirms,  clearly  and  literally,  that  in  times  of  peace  Christians 
must  be  "momentarily  covered  over  in  water;"  well,  does 

Cyril  also,  by  iv  xaipoTr^  SiwypaJv  kv  oix£i()^  at/xaffi  j3a:zTt/T6w<TC,  affirm, 

clearly  and  literally,  that  in  times  of  persecution  Christians 
"must  be  momentarily  covered  over  in  their  own  blood?" 


THE   BAPTISM    OF   JOHN   BY   HIS   BLOOD.  225 

"  IsTo,  he  does  not  say  that  they  must  be,  literally,  covered 
over  in  their  own  blood."  He  does  not  say  so?  "Why? 
Does  he  not  use  ideutically  the  same  grammatical  forms? 
Does  he  not  use  identically  the  same  words?  Is  not  blood, 
and  water,  equally  a  physical  element?  Have  they  not  both, 
equally,  "  covering  over"  power?  Are  they  not  both  traced 
to  the  same  fountain  head — the  Saviour's  wounded  side? 
"  This  is  all  true,  and  exegetical  law  would  seem  to  require 
that  both  baptisms  should  receive  a  like  interpretation,  but 
our  theory  Avill  not  allow  of  this ;  so,  we  interpret  the  first 
literally,  and  make  the  other  a  kind  of  figure  by  which  blood 
is  changed  into  suft'ering,  and  out  of  this  suffering  we  con- 
struct a  'covering'  which  we  throw  over  the  weakness  of 
our  theory."  Well,  as  this  "weakness"  seems  to  be  suf- 
ficiently obvious  to  engage  attention  and  to  elicit  confession, 
it  would  be  ungenerous  to  press  it  farther.  We  make  our 
interpretation  in  harmony  with  exegetical  law,  historical 
fact,  and  the  theological  sentiment  of  the  writer,  and  say, 
that  neither  water  nor  blood  are  spoken  of  as  receptive  ele- 
ments, but  as  purifying  agencies,  and  that  in  peace  Christians 
"  must  be  lourijied  by  water,  and  in  persecution  they  must 
be  2^urified  by  blood."  And  if  there  be  any  "  weakness"  in 
this  interpretation  we  will  not  "  cover  it  over,"  but  welcome 
the  sharp  arrow  to  test  the  joints  of  the  harness.  The  in- 
terpretation of  the  use  of  (iaTZTi^u)  by  Cyril  and  his  associates 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  use  of  that  word  by  New 
Testament  writers.  With  sameness  of  grammatical  usage 
there  is,  also,  difference  in  verbal  meaning. 

Basil  Magnus. — ^Ev  t<L  Idea)  acfiart  (SanT[<T$ivT£r-  xai  ovx  dkraJv  rd  h- 
Tw  udaTt  ISdnrifffia.  "  There  are  some  who  in  striving  for  piety 
have  undergone  death  for  Christ,  in  reality  not  in  semblance, 
needing  for  salvation  nothing  of  the  water  symbols,  being  bap- 
tized by  their  own  blood.  I  say  these  things  without  dises- 
teeming  baptism  by  water"  (IV,  132). 

It  is  only  necessary,  in  addition  to  what  has  been  already 
said,  to  call  attention  to  what  is  most  evident,  that  blood  and 
water  are  spoken  of  as  agencies. 

15 


226  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

DidymuS  Alexandrinus. —  Tw  t8lu}  aTziAourrdixtvot  aiimn^  outw<;  iJTTO 
TOO  dyiou  UvziJixaroq  ron  Oeiiu  i'^woxotrj^rjffav.  "  But  without  being 
born  again  by  baptism,  through  the  Spij'it  of  God,  and  sealed 
by  sanctification,  and  made  his  temple,  no  one  can  partake  of 
the  heavenly  blessings,  although  his  life  should  be  found,  in 
other  respects,  blameless.  However  they  who  have  attained 
martyrdom  before  baptism,  being  cleansed  by  their  own  blood, 
are  thus  made  to  live  by  the  Spirit  of  God"  (IV,  132). 

In  this  passage  dno?.outu  is  substituted  for  ^a-KTiZu).  The 
mere  interchange  of  words  cannot  prove  sameness  of  mean- 
ing. But  it  is  in  proof,  that  iSrmTiZo)  was  used  by  these  early 
Christian  writers  in  the  sense  to  'purify.  Its  interchange, 
therefore,  in  the  same  phrase,  with  a  word  which  signifies, 
confessed!}',  to  purify,  is  proof  that  such  is  its  meaning  in 
such  phrase. 

The  agency  of  blood  and  of  water  is  again  brought  to 
view  as  that  through  which  the  Spirit  of  God  regenerates 
the  soul,  cleanses  it  from  sin,  and  fits  it  for  heaven.  AVe 
are  not,  now,  to  adjudicate  on  their  theology,  but  their 
usage  of  Greek  words. 

Origen. — "  Exeamus  loti  sanguine  nostro.  Baptisma  enim  san- 
guinis solum  est  quod  nos  puriores  reddat,  quam  aquas  baptismus 
redidit."  "  That  we  may  die  washed  by  our  own  blood.  For  it 
is  the  baptism  of  blood,  only,  which  makes  us  j^urer  than  the 
baptism  of  water  made  us"  (II,  9S0). 

With  some  change  of  phraseology  the  purifying  agency 
of  blood  and  water  is,  if  possible,  brought  out  with  increased 
clearness.  He  adds,  "  This  is  not  a  sentiment  of  my  own, 
but  is  declared  by  the  Scriptures,  the  Lord  saying  to  his 
disciples,  '  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  which  ye 
know  not.  And  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accom- 
plished.' You  see,  therefore,  that  he  called  the  shedding  of 
his  blood  baptism."  The  "  shedding  of  blood"  could  not 
be  called  a  dijjping,  nor  a  covering  over.  It  was  called  puri- 
Jication,  and  rightly,  as  that  in  which  and  by  which  purifica- 
tion was  to  be  found.  Thus,  Nehemiah  (Jud.  Bapt.,  345) 
called  "the  thick  water"  found  in  the  pit,  with  which  the 


^  THE   BAPTISM   OF   JOHN   BY    HIS   BLOOD.  227 

altar  was  purified,  xaOapiaimq  "purification."  This  affords 
additional  and  conclusive  evidence  for  the  secondary  mean- 
ing of  this  Greek  word  as  used  by  Patristic  writers. 

Cyprian. — "Ut  quia  coram  hominibus  Christum  confiteatnr, 
et  sanguine  suo  baptizetur?  .  .  .  Quod  si  hseretico  nee  Bap- 
tisma  pubhcae  confessionis  et  sanguinis  proficere  ad  salutem 
potest"  .  .  .  (1123). 

"Baptizenturgloriosissimoetmaximo  sanguinis  Baptismo."  . .. 

"Sanguine  autem  suo  baptizatos  et  passione"  (1124). 

"  Can  tbe  power  of  Baptism  (vis  Baptismi)  be  greater  or  better 
than  Confession,  than  Martyrdom,  when  one  confesses  Christ 
before  men  and  is  baptized  by  his  own  blood?" 

"But  if  the  Baptism  of  public  confession  and  of  blood  cannot 
profit  a  heretic  for  salvation,  because  salvation  is  not  out  of  the 
church,  how  much  more  shall  it  profit  him  nothing,  if  infected 
b}^  the  contagion  of  impure  water  (tinctus  adulterse  aquse  con- 
tagione)  in  the  covert  and  den  of  robbers." 

"  They  who  are  baptized  by  that  most  glorious  and  chiefest 
baptism  of  blood.  The  Lord  declares  in  the  Gospel,  that  those 
baptized  by  his  blood  and  passion  are  sanctified  and  attain  the 
grace  of  the  divine  promise,  Avhen  he  speaks  to  the  thief,  be- 
lieving and  trusting  in  the  very  passion,  and  promises  that  he 
shall  be  with  him  in  Paradise." 

In  this  extract  we  have  the  "baptism  of  confession"  as 
well  as  of  blood.  How  will  the  theory  extract  a  dipping  or 
a  covering  over  out  of  this  baptism  ? 

"We  have,  also,  the  vis  Baptismi,  "the  power  of  Baptism," 
which  is  an  express  declaration  that  the  water  occupies  the 
position  of  agency  in  Baptism,  whatever  may  be  the  manner 
of  its  use.  We  are,  also,  told  that  it  is  "the  power"  in  Con- 
fession, in  Martyrdom,  which  makes  them  Baptisms.  In 
other  words,  it  is  the  influence  which  belongs  to  the  Water, 
to  the  Confession,  to  the  Martyrdom,  which  affects  and 
changes  the  condition  of  the  soul — baptizing  it.  Such  a 
mode  of  speech  finds  nothing  in  the  theory  which  is  re- 
sponsive to  it.  The  view  which  we  have  presented  as  the 
meaning  of  the  word  could  hardly  be  more  distinctly  stated. 

And  we  have,  also,  tingo  ("  tinctus")  used  in  its  secondary 


228  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM.  , 

meaning  to  stain,  to  infect,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  not  un- 
frequently  in  connection  with  baptism  in  a  good  or  bad  sense. 
The  act  {diii)  is  lost,  and  effect  {influence)  only  remains. 

Jerome. — "  Tu  me  in  aqua  baptizas,  iit  ego  te  baptizem  pro  me 
in  sanguine  tuo."  "  '  Suifer  it  to  be  so  now,'  says  the  Lord  Jesus, 
I  have  also  another  baptism  with  which  I  must  be  baptized. 
Thou  dost  baptize  me  with  water,  that  I  may  baptize  thee,  for 
myself,  with  thy  blood"  (YII,  50). 

The  crucifixion  on  Calvary,  and  the  beheading  of  John  in 
prison  are  here  declared  to  be  blood  baptisms.  To  convert 
such  statements  into  "ingulfing  floods"  is  a  confession  that 
the  facts,  as  they  stand,  are  unmanageable. 

This  identification,  by  early  Christian  writers,  of  the  bap 
tism  desired  by  John  with  his  death  as  a  baptism  by  blood, 
shows,  most  unmistakably,  that  a  fluid  element  may  be 
present  in  baptism  and  have  the  "vis  baptismi,"  the  power 
of  baptizing,  without  dipping  or  covering  over. 

The  correctness  of  this  position  is  illustrated  by  many 
baptisms.  Wine  is  a  fluid  which,  by  its  nature,  allows  of  a 
dipping  into  it;  but  the  drunkard  is  baptized  by  wine  with- 
out being  dipped  into  it.  Tears  are  a  fluid  which,  by  their 
nature,  allow  of  a  dipping  into  them  ;  but  the  penitent  bap- 
tized by  tears  is  not  dipped  into  them.  Ashes-ioater  is  a  fluid 
which,  by  its  nature,  allows  of  a  dipping  into  it;  but  the  de- 
filed Israelite  was  baptized  by  it  without  being  dipped  into 
it.  Blood  is  a  fluid  which,  by  its  nature,  allows  of  a  dipping 
into  it;  but  John  the  Baptist  "baptized  by  his  own  blood" 
was  not  dipped  into  it. 

Corollary. —  The  presence  of  a  fluid  element  in  baptism  is 
no  evidence  thai  it  is  there  as  a  receiving  element  into  which 
some  object  is  to  be  dipped. 


THE   COMMISSION   OF   JOHN   TO   BAPTIZE.  229 


JOHN'S  COMMISSION. 


THE  COMMISSION  OF  JOHN  TO  BAPTIZE. 

'AX)^  6  TrijKpaq  fie  ^aTzziZ^iv  iv  udarc. 

"  But  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water." — John  1 :  33. 

This  language  is  a  reference,  in  brief,  by  John,  to  his 
divine  commission  to  employ  a  ritual  ordinance  in  the 
furtherance  of  his  ministry. 

The  object  of  this  rite  and  of  the  entire  ministry  of  John, 
was,  as  he  himself  declares  (vv.  29-31):  "That  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  should  be 
made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water."  We  have,  then,  divine  authority  for  the  object  and 
nature  of  the  rite.  The  object  of  the  rite  was  to  direct  the 
attention  of  the  people,  not  only  by  words,  but  by  the  ad- 
ditional help  of  a  visible  symbol,  to  the  Lamb  of  God  as  in 
himself  most  pure,  as  vindicating  the  divine  purity  by  his 
work,  and  as  demanding  and  securing  purification  in  all 
who  should  share  in  the  fruits  of  that  work.  The  rite  was 
designed  by  the  use  of  symbol  water  to  set  forth  purification 
PROM  SIN  as  the  great  and  vital  thought  connected  with  and 
eifected  by  the  coming  Lamb  op  God. 

The  nature  of  the  rite,  as  to  its  own  inherent  power  to 
purify  or  otherwise,  we  are  also  clearly  taught.  Any  power 
in  itself  to  purify  is  disclaimed.  That  power  is  expressly 
and  exclusively  assigned  to  the  Lamb  of  God.  The  puri- 
fication by  the  Lamb  of  God  is  declared  to  be  a  spiritual 
purification — "Which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
"  To  make  manifest"  this  purification,  not  to  efiiect  it,  nor  to 


230  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

effect  any  other,  but  to  make  manifest  that  purification  which 
was  to  be  effected  by  the  Lamb  of  God,  "  I  come  baptizing 
with  water."  The  nature  of  this  ordinance,  tlierefore,  w^as 
neither  that  of  the  Jew  effectively  purifying  ceremonially, 
nor  of  the  Patrist  effectively  purifying  spiritually,  but  such 
as  pertains  to  simple  water  which  by  its  nature  cleanses  from 
physical  defilement,  and  so  by  its  nature  becomes,  in  its  sim- 
plicity, a  fit  symbol  for  absolute  purification. 

The  rite,  then,  is  not  in  itself  a  purifying  rite,  but  "  makes 
manifest "  a  purification  which  is  to  proceed  from  another 
source.  Physical  purification  is  a  reality.  Spiritual  puri- 
fication is  a  reality.  Ceremonial  purification  is  a  reality. 
Symbol  purification  is  not  a  reality.  It  is  but  the  falling  of 
a  shadow  from  the  purification  symbolized.  But  it  is  not, 
therefore,  without  value.  It  was  but  a  shadow  which  rested 
on  the  tents  of  Israel ;  but  that  shadow  came  from  a  cloud 
in  which  Jehovah  dwelt.  There  was  a  blessing  in  "  the 
shadow."  The  symbol  rite  of  John  was  but  a  shadow ;  but 
it  w^as  a  shadow  forecasted  by  the  coming  "Lamb  of  God 
that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  and  so  "  made  him 
manifest."     There  was  a  blessing  in  the  symbol  shadow. 

There  are  some  who  are  by  no  means  satisfied  with  this 
divine  teaching  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  John's  bap- 
tism; but  who  confidently  afiirm,  that  the  essence  of  the  rite 
centres  in  the  manner  in  which  the  water  is  used.  Accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine  the  Lamb  of  God  will  not  "  be  made 
manifest"  except  the  water  be  used  in  one  definite  mode. 
And  the  nature  of  water  as  purifying  is  of  so  little  value, 
and  is  so  mere  an  accident,  that  the  rite  has  no  existence, 
without  a  certain  mode  of  use. 

If  this  be  true,  then,  surely  it  is  one  of  the  most  marvel- 
lous things  ever  attributed  to  our  most  holy  religion. 

But  what  is  that  mode  of  act  which  works  with  such 
magical  power  as  to  swallow  up  all  other  good  ? 

For  more  than  a  hundred  years  it  has  been  said,  The  act 
is  most  definite  in  its  form,  and  is  absolutely  expressed  by 
to  dip.  Recently,  this  has  been  found  to  be  a  mistake,  and 
it  is  corrected  thus :  "  It  is  of  no  consequence  what  is  the 


THE   COMMISSION    OF   JOHN   TO   BAPTIZE.  231 

form  of  the  act,  so  that  the  whole  body  is  put  in  and  taken 
ont  of  the  water."  More  recently  still,  there  has  been  this 
amendment:  "Put  the  body  under  the  water  in  any  way; 
but  there  being  no  provision  in  the  command  for  taking  it 
out,  we  must,  for  this,  trust  to  the  God  of  nature  and 
muscular  eflbrt." 

Whether  tliis  remarkable  interpretation  of  a  divine  com- 
mand (attained  only  through  some  centuries  of  embarrass- 
ment and  obscurity)  be  correct  or  not,  we  will  continue  to 
inquire  by  examining  the  language  in  which  John  refers  to 
his  divine  commission. 

Water. 

1.  'Tdazi.  The  first  question  to  be  determined  is  this: 
Does  the  presence  of  water  in  John's  baptism,  thereby,  show 
that  the  baptism  must  be  physical,  and  the  water  must  be 
used  as  and  for  a  receptive  element,  and  not  as  a  symbol  ? 

This  question  is  answered  most  absolutely,  by  facts,  in 
the  negative.     Such  facts  have  already  been  referred  to. 

Wine  is  a  fluid ;  and  we  have  seen  it  to  be  present  in 
many  baptisms  without  being  treated  as  a  receptive  element. 
It  was  there  as  an  agency  producing  a  baptism  in  which 
receptivity  had  no  existence.  Wine  can  be  used  in  baptism 
as  a  receptacle,  but  the  baptism  is  deadly  whether  the  ex- 
periment be  tried  on  the  live  chicken  of  the  Roman  poet,  or 
on  the  princely  Duke  of  Clarence.  Baptism  in  wine  drowns; 
baptism  by  wine  makes  drunk. 

I31ood  is  a  fluid ;  and  we  have  met  with  it  in  many  bap- 
tisms, but  not  as  a  receptive  element.  It  was  there,  if  the 
Greek  language  is  capable  of  expressing  anything  by  case 
or  preposition,  as  the  agency  eflecting  a  baptism  in  which 
there  was  no  receptacle,  much  less  was  the  blood  such  a 
receptacle. 

Tears  are  a  fluid;  and  we  encounter  them  abundantly  in 
baptisms ;  but  never  are  men  or  women  dipped  into  them, 
covered  over  temporarily  in  them  by  some  indefinite  act,  or 
covered  over  in  them  and  left  to  their  own  resources  to  get 
out.     They  are  not  a  receptacle. 


232  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Water  is  a  fluid ;  and  as  such  was  present  in  the  baptism 
of  Carmel's  altar,  but  the  altar  was  neither  dipped  into  it, 
nor  covered  over  b}^  it  in  any  way.    It  was  not  a  receptacle. 

It  is,  then,  a  point  settled  beyond  disturbance,  that  the 
simple  presence  of  water,  or  of  any  other  fluid,  in  baptism 
gives  no  evidence  whatever  to  prove,  or  to  allow  the  affirm- 
ation, that  the  baptism  must  be  in  such  fluid.  It  may  be 
grievous  to  the  theory  to  acknowledge  this ;  but  acknowl- 
edged or  unacknowledged,  it  is,  still,  the  truth.  There  is  a 
"power"  in  wine,  blood,  tears,  water  (ceremonial  of  the 
Jew,  symbol  of  John),  to  baptize  apart  from  receptivity. 

'Ev.  Does  the  presence  of  h  in  the  record  of  a  baptism, 
having  as  its  adjunct  a  fluid  element,  make  a  physical  bap- 
tism necessary,  and  require  that  the  baptized  object  shall  be 
placed  within  such  fluid  element? 

This  question,  also,  must  be  answered  in  the  negative. 
We  have  met  with  many  baptisms  iy  Sc/mrt,  in  none  of  which 
was  the  baptism  physical,  nor  was  the  baptized  object  placed 
within  the  blood.  The  mart^-r  who  laid  down  his  life  for 
the  love  of  Christ  found  in  his  shed  blood  a  "vis  baptismi" 
by  which  his  soul  was  (as  supposed)  baptized  and  fitted  for 
heaven.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  iv  uoan  cannot,  by  reason 
simply  of  its  fluid  character  and  preposition,  make  the  bap- 
tism with  which  it  may  be  connected  a  physical  rather  than 
a  symbol  baptism,  nor  make  the  water  to  fill  the  part  of  a 
receptive  element.  This  conclusion  is  farther  established 
by  the  use,  in  these  same  baptisms,  oi  aitiazi  and  odan^  atfiaroq 

and  udazuq^  anb  ac/jLazuq  and  aTio  udaroq,  di"  aifiaroq  and  5{'  udazog,  iu 

which  cases  receptivity  is  out  of  the  question,  and  "power" 
is  expressed. 

BanziZu).  Docs  the  presence  of  ^ianzi^o)  necessitate  a  physi- 
cal baptism  and  require  withinness  to  be  present  as  its  char- 
acteristic feature?  No.  In  "  baptizat  quae  non  potuerunt 
purificatione  sancti  Spiritus  purgari,"  the  transferred  Greek 
word  appears  without  a  physical  baptism  and  without  any 
real  or  conceivable  withinness.     But  if  the  verb  be  followed 


THE   COMMISSION   OF   JOHfl   TO   BAPTIZE.  233 

by  a  preposition,  ^anriZu)  Iv,  how  then  ?  Well,  tzXcIov  ^ann'^dij.tvov 
iv  yaXrjvT]  (C.  B.,  278)  meets  the  condition;  and  yet  the  prepo- 
sition and  its  adjunct,  immediately  sequent  to  the  verb,  have 
no  more  to  do  with  the  form  of  the  baptism,  or  with  being 
a  receptacle  within  which  the  baptism  takes  place,  than  if 
they  were  in  the  moon. 

But  if  such  phraseology  and  a  fluid  element  are  con- 
joined, must  not  the  baptism  be  physical  and  with  a  cov- 
ering? It  must  not  be  either.  We  have  a  score  of  times 
just  such  phraseology  = /SaTTTfCo/i^voy  Iv  acimrt;  and  there  is 
neither  physical  baptism  nor  covering.  And  there  may  be 
a  ^oKTi^oixivov  iv  udari  in  whicli  there  will  be  just  as  little 
appearance  of  either.  Water  is  just  as  capable  of  being 
used  for  religious  purposes  in  other  character  than  that  of 
a  receptive  element,  as  is  blood.  'Ev  v8ariy  with  ^anriZw,  may 
denote  merely  a  circumstance  belonging  to  the  baptism,  a 
symbol  with  "power"  to  show  the  purifying  nature  of  a 
baptism  elq  fj.£Tdvoiav,  as  ev  TO)  Tzku)  [ia-KxLaai  (C.  B.,  p.  266)  denotes 
a  circumstance  as  to  the  period  during  which  the  baptism 
(drowning)  took  place,  which  baptism  was  Iv  rw  rr/lw,  during 
the  voyage  as  to  the  time,  and  dz  OdXaaaav  into  the  sea  as 
the  enveloping  element. 

In  the  phrase  ^aT.-ciX,ziv  Iv  udart.  it  is  not  only  possible,  in 
Classic  Greek,  that  the  preposition  and  noun  may  indicate 
the  position  of  the  baptizer  and  not  of  the  baptized  object, 
but  it  is  possible  that  they  should  indicate  the  means  by 
which,  and  not  the  element  in  which,  the  baptism  took 
place.  In  Hellenistic  Greek  this  possibility  becomes  a 
probability ;  and  when  this  phrase  occurs  in  the  administra- 
tion of  a  religious  ordinance  in  the  narration  of  which  one 
writer  (Matthew)  of  Hebrew  training  uses  kv  udan,  and 
another  (Luke)  of  Greek  culture,  uses  the  simple  udazc,  a 
lower  probability  rises  into  a  violent  probability ;  and  when, 
in  addition  to  this,  other  writers,  native-born  Greeks  of  the 
highest  culture,  describe  the  same  transaction,  indifferently, 

by  h  udaTC,  udau,  u8aTo<:,  avzo  v8aro<;^  i^  udaroq,  dC  udaroq,  proba- 
bility passes  into  moral  certainty.  If  this  moral  certainty 
requires  any  addition  to  make  it  absolute,  it  could  only  be 


234  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

by  express  statement  declaring  that  the  baptism  was  into 
another  wholly  different  element,  and  not  into  water;  and  this 
absolute  proof  we  shall  find  is  not  lacking. 

Proof  of  the  agency  of  water  in  baptism  is  found  in  another 
form.  Augustin  (IX,  176)  says,  "  Sacramentum,  quod  miu- 
istrorum  opere  corporaliter  adhibetur,  sed  ■per  hoc  Deus 
hominis  consecrationem  spiritualiter  operatur."  The  phys- 
ical element  is  here  declared  through  preposition  and  case 
("per  hoc")  in  the  strongest  possible  manner  to  be  the 
agency  by  which  a  spiritual  change  of  condition  is  effected. 
Also  (276):  "Baptizandum  esse  professus  est  iterum,  non 
jam  aqua,  nee  spiritu,  sed  sanguinis  baptismo,  cruce  pas- 
sionis."  Here,  water,  Spirit,  blood,  and  cross  are  declared 
to  be  agencies  by  which,  and  not  elements  in  which,  baptism 
takes  place.  If  martyrs  may  be  baptized  by  blood  and  not 
in  blood,  as  a  symbol  of  consecration  unto  death;  and  if 
Christ  may  be  baptized  by  his  cross  and  not  in  his  cross,  as 
the  symbol  of  woe,  and  shame,  and  death;  then,  his  people 
may  be  baptized  by  water  and  not  in  water,  as  the  symbol 
of  that  purification  received  through  his  blood. 

Again  (276):  "  Similes  Christo  martyres  facitis,  quos  post 
aquam  vere  baptismatis  sanguis  baptista  perfundit."  This 
passage  teaches,  1.  That  blood  is  the  agenc}^  in  baptism. 
2.  That  "baptista"  has  a  secondary  meaning.  It  is  as  im- 
possible for  "sanguis  baptista"  to  denote  dipping  blood, 
covering  over  blood,  as  it  is  impossible  that  "  Baptista  Mag- 
nus" (Jud.  Bapt.,  223)  can  mean  "Great  Dipper,"  when 
baptism  is  by  "  waving  a  flaming  sword."  3.  It  expressly 
declares,  that  the  baptism  was  not  in  the  blood,  or  in  any- 
thing else,  whether  of  fact,  or  of  imagination,  because  it  de- 
clares the  manner  in  which  the  blood  was  applied  [perfim- 
ditur),  by  sprinkling  or  affusion.  Baptism  was  effected  by 
water,  almost  daily,  applied  in  the  same  way — "  non  desunt 
qui  propc  qnotidie  baptizentur  segri"  (Hilary,  1  Tim.  3: 12, 
13;  Beecher,  175).  The  sick  were  baptized  in  the  same  way 
(perfusionc),  by  the  sprinkUng  or  affusion  of  water,  and  not 
by  dipping  in,  or  covering  over  in  water.  The  Emperor 
Constantius  {dnoOv^axwy  idu^s  ^arai^taOat)  "when  dying  wished 


JOHN'S   COMMISSION.  235 

to  be  baptized."  Dying  nieu  are  baptized  by  water,  not  in 
water.  In  this  direction,  also,  we  have  absolute  proof  that 
water  was  used  as  an  agency  in  baptism. 

Again  :  It  is  in  proof,  that  the  Classics  did  not  use  the 
formula  [ianriZeiv  Iv  to  express  the  execution  of  a  baptism,  the 
causing  of  an  object  to  pass  out  of  one  condition  into  another; 
neither  is  such  phraseology  suitable  to  express  any  such  con- 
ception. It  is  an  incongruous  combination  of  movement  and 
of  rest.  The  preposition  with  the  active  form  of  the  verb 
could,  fitly,  be  employed  by  Hellenistic  writers  to  express 
the  agency  in  baptism.  The  Classics  with  the  passive  form 
used  this  preposition  to  denote  the  condition  in  which  the 

baptized  object  was  at  rest — (is^aTzriffixivT^v  kv  tw  ^dOei  too  amjiaroq 

— Iv  TO)  auiiiart.  ps!ia7ZTi(T!iivT)  (Class.  Bapt.,  254).  If  it  be  insisted 
upon,  that  in  John's  commission  jSanziUtv  iv  udan  refers  to  the 
execution  of  a  physical  baptism,  the  element  of  the  baptism 
being  water,  and  the  verb  used  in  its  primary,  literal  sense, 
then,  it  is  as  certain  as  that  Greek  is  Greek,  that  John  was 
commissioned  to  drown  every  person  whom  he  baptized. 
Not  only  does  not  the  Greek  word  ever  take  out  of  the  con- 
dition in  which  it  once  places  its  object,  and  not  only  is  this 
Greek  word  employed  expressly  to  denote  the  drowning  of 
men,  but,  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  theory,  the 
very  language  of  John's  commission  represents  as  the  re- 
sult of  his  baptism,  his  disciples  as  resting  within  the  water  in 
a  drowned  condition. 

If  this  conclusion,  from  these  premises,  can  be  avoided 
it  must  be  done  in  some  other  way  than  by  making  the 
verb  take  out  what  it  puts  in,  for  this  we  cannot  allow,  as 
"/JaTTTj^w  never  does  take  its  subject  out  of  the  water"  (Bap- 
tist Quart.,  April,  1869, 142),  nor  can  this  be  done  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  "  God  of  nature"  and  the  baptized  man's  "  nor- 
mal muscular  action"  (ibid.),  for  we  baptize  under  the  God 
of  grace,  and  he  has  made  no  provision  for  escape  froin  that 
baptism  which  he  enjoins,  whether  by  the  "normal  muscular 
action"  of  the  baptized,  or  in  any  other  way. 

Whether,  then,  we  look  at  this  Commission  of  John 
through  a  Classic,  a  Hellenistic,  or  a  Patristic  medium, 


236  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

there  is  an  imperative  arrest  of  that  interpretation  which 
would  command  John  to  baptize  men  and  women  in  water. 


JOHN'S  COMMISSION  ILLUSTRATED  BY  HISTOEICAL 
ALLUSION. 

To  ^d-KTtff/ia  'Icudwou — The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it? — 
Matthew  21 :  25 ;  Mark  11  :  30 ;  Luke  20  : 4. 

BaTzritrOivTsq  ro  fidTZTKT/xa  'Icodvvou — Being  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  the  publicans  justified  God. — Luke  7  :  29. 

^Atto  tou  (ianTiffp-aroq  'Iwawou — From  the  baptism  of  John. — 
Acts  1 :  22. 

To  jSdTtTtff/ia  ^[(oavvou — Knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John. — 
Acts  18  :  25. 

Uiuawrjq  /lev  i[idr,Tia£  jSdnrcff/xa  /xeravoiag — John  verily  baptized 
with  the  baptism  of  repentance. — Acts  19  :  4. 

Baptisms  are  Distinctive. 

These  passages  do  not  require  any  detailed  discussion. 
They  are  adduced  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  through- 
out the  Scripture  when  "the  baptism  of  John"  is  spoken 
of  it  is  in  a  manner  to  indicate  its  possession  of  a  distinctive 
character  separating  it  from  all  other  baptisms. 

We  say,  that  this  is  the  force  and  design  of  the  phrase 
l3d7tTi<Tfj.a  'Iioawoo.  The  character  of  the  baptism  is  pointed  out 
by  the  adjunct  and  defining  genitive.  "John"  the  origi- 
nator and  preacher  of  the  baptism  stands  for  the  peculiar 
character  which  he  gave  to  that  baptism. 

The  theory  says:  All  baptisms  are  alike;  and  John's  bap- 
tism did  not  differ,  by  jot  or  tittle,  from  any  other  baptism, 
heathen  or  Christian;  the  phrase  "baptism  of  John"  merely 
points  out  John  as  a  dipper  in,  or  coverer  over  in,  water, 
just  as  "  baptism  of  Moses"  would  represent  Moses  in  the 
same  aspect,  and  baptism  of  Bacchus  would  make  Bacchus 
a  dipper  in,  or  coverer  over  in,  water,  or  wine,  or  some 
equivalent  "ingulfing  flood;"  baptism,  by  whomsoever  or 


JOHN'S   COMMISSION.  237 

by  whatsoever  effected,  is  one  and  the  same  thing,  "  a  dip- 
ping" (Carson),  "a  momentary  covering"  (Fuller),  "a  defi- 
nite act"  (Conant),  "a  specific  act"  (Alex.  Campbell),  "  a 
plunge"  (Arnold-Stourdza). 

Suppose  that  it  should  be  granted,  that  in  all  baptisms  an 
elementary  thought,  more  or  less  attenuated,  might  be  trace- 
able, would  that  prove  or  begin  to  justify  the  conclusion, 
that  all  baptisms  are  alike  ?  What  would  be  thought  of  the 
man  who  should  say — "A  related  elementary  thought  may 
be  traced  through  every  usage  of  the  word  condition^  there- 
fore, all  conditions  are  one  and  the  same  ?  " 

Is  it  true,  that  because  an  abstract  idea  can  be  attached  to 
a  word,  therefore  nothing  but  such  abstract  idea  can  enter 
into  it  when  used  in  concrete  relations  ?  Was  the  "  con- 
dition" of  Israel  under  Pharaoh,  one  and  the  same  with  the 
"  condition  "  of  Israel  under  David  ?  Is  a  "  condition  of 
bondage"  the  same  as  a  '' condition  of  freedom?"  "a  con- 
dition of  woe"  the  same  as  "  a  condition  of  joy  ?"  "  a  con- 
dition of  death"  the  same  as  "  a  condition  of  life?"  Such 
questions  answer  themselves.  Baptism  has  just  the  same 
unity,  and  just  the  same  diversity,  as  has  "condition." 
Baptism  is  condition  limited  to  that  phase  characterized  by 
controlling  assimilative  influence,  the  specific  nature  of 
which  is  determined  by  adjunct  terms. 

In  support  of  this  position  I  would  appeal  to  the  state- 
ments of  Ambrose,  "  Baptisma  non  est  unum ;  "  "  Multa 
sunt  genera  baptismatum ; "  and  to  the  endlessly  varied 
specific  baptisms  scattered  through  Classic  writings.  Among 
these  Classic  baptisms  are  found :  1.  Baptism  of  wine,  a 
drunken  condition.  2.  Baptism  of  war,  a  desolated  condition. 
3.  Baptism  of  care,  an  anxious  condition.  4.  Baptism  of 
trouble,  a  harassed  condition.  5.  Baptism  of  passion,  an 
excited  condition.  6.  Baptism  of  grief,  a  sorrowful  con- 
dition. 7.  Baptism  of  ignorance,  an  unenlightened  con- 
dition. 8.  Baptism  of  wickedness,  a  depraved  condition. 
9.  Baptism  of  taxes,  an  oppressed  condition.  10.  Baptism 
of  debts,  a  bankrupt  condition.  11.  Baptism  of  mental 
labor,  an  imbecile  condition.     12.  Baptism  of  questions,  a 


238  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

bewildered  condition.  13.  Baptism  of  disease,  a  sickly  con- 
dition. 14,  Baptism  of  Magian  arts,  a  superstitious  con- 
dition. 15.  Baptism  of  poverty,  an  impoverished  condition. 
16.  Baptism  of  a  drug,  a  somnolent  condition.  17.  Baptism 
of  pleasure,  a  joyous  condition.  18.  Baptism  of  fright,  an 
alarmed  condition.  19.  Baptism  of  surprise,  a  startled  con- 
dition. 20.  Baptism  of  heifer  ashes,  a  ceremonially  pure 
condition. 

There  is  no  truth  in  the  statement — "  Baptism  is  one,  is 
mode  and  nothing  but  mode;  what  is  baptism  in  one  case  is 
baptism  in  anotlier  case;  there  can  be  no  difference  in  a 
mode,  a  definite  act." 

Here  are  a  score  of  baptisms  of  which  no  two  are  alike ; 
and  in  no  one  of  which  has  mode,  or  definite  act,  any  place 
whatever.  Baptism  is  no  more  one  than  is  condition  one. 
Is  it  replied  to  this :  "  These  baptisms  are  not  physical  bap- 
tisms and  therefore  not  in  point."  We  rejoin  :  1.  The  as- 
sumption, that  John's  baptism  was  a  dipping  or  covering  in 
water,  we  cannot  allow.  It  is  the  point  at  issue.  It  must 
be  proved.  2.  All  physical  baptisms  are  diversified  by  rea- 
son of  a  diverse  nature  in  the  baptized  object,  and  a  diverse 
character  in  the  enveloping  medium;  whence  originates  an 
endless  diversity  in  the  condition  of  baptized  objects. 

This  resultant  diversity  of  condition  among  physically 
baptized  objects  (due,  1.  To  the  nature  of  the  object;  2.  To 
the  character  of  the  influential  cause;  3.  To  the  form  in 
which  such  influence  was  brought  to  bear)  gave  origin  to 
those  baptisms  in  which  the  condition  of  objects  was  changed 
by  controlling  influences  not  operating  in  the  same  method 
as  in  the  case  of  physical  baptisms.  These  baptisms  are 
characterized  by  the  peculiarity  of  the  influences  operating 
to  produce  them,  and  hence  are  as  diversified  as  are  the  in- 
fluences. The  distinctive  baptism  which  is  so  clearly  in- 
volved in  the  phrase,  "baptism  of  John  "  was  (as  we  are  told 
in  Acts  19  :  3,  4)  that  of  repentance.  In  reply  to  the  inquiry, 
"Into  what  were  ye  baptized?"  The  reply  was  given, 
"  Into  John's  baptism ; "  on  which  the  Apostle  interprets 
this  language  by  declaring,  "John  verily  baptized  the  bap- 


JOHN'S   COMMISSION.  239 

tism  of  repentance."  It  is,  then,  by  inspired  authority  that 
we  say,  "the  baptism  of  John,"  and  "the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance" are  equivalent  expressions.  It  becomes,  therefore,  a 
point  of  the  first  moment  to  determine  the  true  value  of  the 
phrase,  "baptism  of  repentance." 

BdnTiff/xa  ixsravoiaq. 

The  translation  which  the  New  Version  gives  of  this 
phrase  is  "  immersion  of  repentance."  A  note  is  appended 
to  vindicate  "  immersion  "  {in  loater,  of  course)  as  the  trans- 
lation of  iSdnzcff/ia.  This  is  done  by  an  appeal  to  eminent 
names.  The  best  appeal  for  the  meaning  of  words  is  to  the 
usage  of  the  vi'ords.  The  usage  of  this  word  is  so  restricted, 
that  there  is  less  reason  than  usual  for  turning  aside  from 
the  highest  authority.  The  following,  I  believe,  are  facts: 
1.  This  w^ord  is  never  met  with  in  the  Classics.  2.  Its  use 
originates  in  the  Scriptures,  in  which  it  is  never  used  with 
a  physical  defining  adjunct.  3.  It  is  never  employed  in  Pa- 
tristic writings  to  denote  a  simple  physical  mersion.  4.  The 
usage  of  the  word  shows  that  it  is  not  derived  from  the  pri- 
mary but  secondary  use  of  /Sa-n'^w,  of  which  secondary  use 
its  own  usage  is  a  proof,  and  the  highest  proof  If  fidiznaim 
had  originated  with  [ianri'^w  to  merse,  it  would  have  indica- 
ted (according  to  its  form)  the  condition  demanded  by  that 
word,  namely,  an  indefinitely  prolonged  physical  envelop- 
ment; but  it  has  no  such  usage,  and,  therefore,  can  have  no 
such  origin.  If  it  sprung  out  of  the  secondary  use  of  this 
word,  to  ivjluence  coniroUingly ,  then,  it  would  denote  a  con- 
dition resultant  from  such  influence;  and  such,  with  essen- 
tially related  usage,  marks  the  entire  history  of  the  word.  In 
such  origin  and  usage  ^dnrKsim  shows  a  perfect  parallelism 
with  the  related  word  [idtiim.  This  word  is  not  derived  from 
that  stem  of  fid-Kzu)  which  signifies  to  dip,  but  from  that  which 
signifies  to  dye;  and  hence,  it  signifies  not  a  dip,  but  a  dye, 
and  a  color  made  by  a  dye.  --^ 

In  the  passage,  "  'Iva  /lyj  ae  i3d4'co  j3d/j.!ia  lapdcavixov,  Lcst  I  dye 
you  a  purple  dye,"  I  presume  few  would  feel  it  desirable  to 
make  a  new  version  by  rendering  it,  "Lest  I  dye  you  a 


240  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

purple  dipJ^  Would  the  phrase  ;9a'/z,aa  Tzoptpopy^q^  a  dye  of  jmrple, 
be  improved  bj  the  translation,  "a  dip  of  purple?"  But 
such  translation  is  not  more  erroneous  and  unintelligible, 
than  is  the  translation  of  [idnrKTim  ij.zravoia'z  by  '•'•  immersion  of 
repentance."  Bap-ixa  is  qualified  and  defined  by  r.opcpupr^z^ 
and  ftdnTiaim,  in  like  manner,  is  qualified   and  defined    by 

peravdia'^. 

But  again :  This  translation  is  not  only  a  philological 
error,  but  is,  also,  a  moral  impossibility  in  its  relations.  If 
^dr.Ttffim  be  derived  from  [ianri'^u)  to  merse,  then,  it  cannot 
rationally  mean  a  dipping,  a  tem.porary  covering,  for  there  is 
no  such  thing  in  the  verb.  It  might  as  well  be  said,  that 
^dpfia  means  a  temporary  dye.  There  is  nothing  temporary 
in  the  verb  or  in  its  derivative.  This  is  not  merely  true  as 
a  philological  deduction,  but  it  is  true  as  a  matter  of  fact 
shown  in  all  the  usage  of  the  word.  There  is  no  such  thing 
to  be  met  with  anywhere  in  the  [N'ew  Testament,  where  this 
word  originates,  as  a  dipping  l^dnTcffpa.  And  to  put  men  as 
demanded  by  the  word  in  a  condition  of  water  baptism, 
would  be  to  them  certain  destruction.  From  this  there  is 
no  escape  if  we  are  governed  by  the  force  of  terms;  and  if 
we  are  not,  then,  it  is  not  a  "New  Version"  that  is  needed, 
but  a  New  Bible  altogether. 

Still  farther:  The  translation  "immersion  of  repentance" 
must  be  rejected  as  no  translation.  It  is  neither  English  nor 
Greek,  nor  any  other  language  in  the  long  list  of  Babel's 
offspring.  To  make  it  something  by  dashing  in  pieces  the 
divine  mould  in  which  inspiration  has  east  this  phrase,  and 
casting  it  over  again  after  a  model  fashioned  according  to 
the  theory,  we  can  never  allow.  If  the  dependence  of 
l3d7:Tt(T/m  on  peravoiaq  is  to  be  ruthlessly  severed,  and  an  un- 
lawful union  is  to  be  established  between  it  and  water,  so  as 
to  make  an  immersion  in  ivater  (a  (id-KTiffpa  vdaTo^,  of  which 
the  Word  of  God  knows  absolutely  nothing),  then,  let  such 
immersion  be  reserved  for  the  theory  itself;  and  when  it 
shall  have  perished  by  such  immersion,  spare  others  from 
undergoing  any  such  like  experiment. 

Let  us  take  these  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost  just  as  they 


John's  commission.  241 

stand,  adding  nothing  to  them  nor  taking  anything  from 
them,  and,  as  becomes  faithful  expositors  of  the  Word  of 
God,  humbly  ask.  What  do  they  teach  ?  and  not.  How  can 
we  alter  them  so  as  to  make  them  teach  some  notion  of  our 
own  ? 

Do  these  words,  ^dTznaim  iJ.sravoia<;,  express  a  complete 
thought  in  themselves,  and  one  which  is  in  harmony  with 
the  general  tenor  of  the  Scriptures,  and  demanded  by  the 
particular  passage  in  which  they  stand  ?  We  answer  affirm- 
atively. And  in  evidence  now  say :  The  proof  already  fur- 
nished by  this  Inquiry  is  clear  and  full,  that  iSdnnap-a  does 
and  must  express  condition  marked  by  controlling  influence. 
Such  a  term  is  susceptible  of  being  placed  in  relation  with, 
and  thus  receiving  specific  coloring  from,  an  almost  in- 
definitely wide  range  of  influences.  In  the  present  case  it 
is  allied  with  //.erayota?,  the  genitive  form  (according  to  the 
law  already  stated)  defining  the  specific  character  of  the 
baptism,  namely,  a  baptism  (=  a  thoroughly  changed  condition) 
under  the  infiueyice  of  repentance.  Kow,  whether  this  be  a  com- 
plete thought,  whether  it  be  in  harmony  with  the  tenor  of 
Scripture,  whether  it  is  that  which  the  particular  passages, 
in  which  the  phrase  occurs,  demand,  and  whether  this  be 
fairly  deduced  from  the  teachings  of  a  true  philology  and 
the  just  interpretation  of  grammatical  forms,  I  cheerfully 
submit  to  the  judgment  of  those  who  are  competent  to 
decide. 

It  may  be  observed,  that  while  the  particular  grammatical 
form  in  this  case  defining  the  nature  of  the  baptism,  is  that 
of  the  simple  genitive,  the  baptism  may,  also,  be  defined, 
as  to  its  character,  by  other  forms.     In  the  early  Christian 

writers  we  meet  with  fddnTCff/ia  iv  &!J.aTC,  ac/iau,  airj.aTo^,  i^  atimzoq 

5:'  at!J.aTo<:,  and,  with  the  same  forms,  in  connection  with  a 
great  variety  of  influences;  all  of  which  are  equally  capable 
of  indicating  the  particular  character  of  the  baptism.  Thus, 
Origen  speaks  of  a  baptism  "  through  the  mystery  of  Christ's 
suffering,"  genitive  with  8id;  Athanasius  of  a  "baptism 
through  tears,"  genitive  with  did ;  Eusebius  of  a  "  baptism 
through  fire,"  genitive  with  Sid;    John  of  Damascus  of  a 

16 


242  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

"baptism  throngb  blood  and  martyrdom,"  genitive  with  did; 
also,  of  a  "  baptism  through  repentance,"  genitive  with  did; 
Cyril  of  a  "baptism  through  faith,"  genitive  Avith  dcd;  and 
Justin  Martyr  confirms  the  clear  usage  of  John  of  Damascus, 
which  makes  repentance  the  efficient  agency  in  constituting 
the  baptism,  by  the  parallel  phrase  to  Xourpov  r^?  /xsTavoia^:, 
"  the  washing  of  repentance,"  which  baptizes,  cleanses,  the 
soul  from  unholy  aifections. 

Such  phrases,  by  eminent  Greek  scholars,  determine  the 
meaning  of  [idr^ziffiia  to  be  such,  that  it  may  be  effected  by 
suffering,  by  blood,  by  tears,  by  tire,  by  martyrdom,  by  faith, 
by  repentance.  This  is  beyond  controversy.  It  has  already 
been  shown,  that  i3d-Ti<T;j.a  is,  also,  used  with  the  simple 
genitive,  defining  the  baptism  in  these  same  relations;  as 
also  with  the  simple  dative  in  its  instrumental  force.  Such 
usage  and  such  forms  prove,  incontestablj',  that  iSd-rcff/xa 
ij.erav()iaq  indicates  neither  more  nor  less  than  its  own  express 
declaration — a  repentance  baptism.,  ]\ist  as  ^dufxa  Tzop<pbprji;  indi- 
cates— a  pmyle  dye.  As  confirmatory  of  this  conclusion  may 
be  adduced  the  fact,  that  writers  of  all  classes  abandon  the 
idea,  that  the  phrases  "  baptism  of  John,"  "  baptism  of  re- 
pentance," can  be  interpreted  on  a  mere  water  basis.  Thus, 
Dr.  Halley  (p.  162)  says,  "John  had  to  teach  a  new  doctrine. 
So  closely  were  the  baptism  and  the  new  doctrine  connected, 
that  the  one  term  seems  to  be  employed  for  the  other.  '  The 
baptism  of  John'  (the  new  doctrine)  'was  it  from  heaven 
or  of  men?'  'After  the  baptism'  (the  new  doctrine)  'which 
John  preached.'  To  be  baptized  was  to  be  initiated  as  a 
disciple  or  learner  of  the  new  doctrine — the  speedy  coming 
of  Christ."  Professor  Wilson  (p.  343)  says,  "  The  Scriptures, 
more  than  once,  identify  the  doctrine  and  the  baptism  of 
John." 

The  Christian  Standard  (Baptist)  says,  "  This  phrase,  'bap- 
tism of  John,'  is  to  be  taken  for  the  doctrine  of  this  great 
herald  of  Jesus."  Professor  Ripley,  an  eminent  Baptist 
commentator,  says  (Acts  18  :  25),  "  The  baptism  of  John  is 
here  put  for  all  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist;  and  all 
the  doctrine  he  taught."     And  (Acts  19  :  3),  "  We  received 


John's  commission.  243 

the  doctrine  which  John  the  Baptist  taught."  .  .  .  So,  Pro- 
fessor Ilackett  (Acts  18  :  25),  "  Knowing  only  the  baptism 
of  John,  which  diifered  from  that  of  the  Apostles  mainly  in 
these  respects ;  first,  that  theirs  recognized  a  Messiah  who 
had  come,  and,  secondly,  that  it  was  attested  by  the  extra- 
ordinary gifts  of  the  Spirit.  Since  John,  however,  taught 
that  the  Saviour  was  about  to  appear,  and  that  repentance, 
faith  in  him,  and  holiness  were  necessary  to  salvation,  Apol- 
los,  though  acquainted  only  with  his  teaching,  could  be  said, 
with  entire  truth,  to  be  'instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord.'  " 
Thus,  these  distinguished  Baptist  scholars  unite  in  declar- 
ing, that  "the  baptism  of  John"  as  used  in  the  Scriptures, 
sometimes  at  least,  does  not  mean  a  dipping  into  water.  By 
this  we  are  to  understand,  that  in  some  instances  the  separa- 
tion of  this  phrase  from  water  is  so  plain,  that  the  fact  must 
be  acknowledged.  Now,  we  ask  in  turn,  for  a  single  in- 
stance in  which  [id7:Tia<j.a  Stands  so  related  to  water  that  there 
must  be  a  baptism  in  the  water,  and  a  separation  cannot  be 
made  between  the  baptism  and  a  covering  over  in  the  water. 
We  say,  that  there  is  no  such  case  in  John's  ministry.  The 
statement  by  Professor  Ripley,  that  "the  baptism  of  John" 
is  put  for  all  the  ministry  of  John  is  too  broad.  "  The  bap- 
tism of  John"  was  the  baptism  which  John  introduced;  and 
that  baptism  was  a  doctrine,  to  wit,  thorough  repentance  in 
preparation  for  the  Messiah,  which  doctrine  was  illustrated 
and  enforced  by  a  rite  in  which  water  was  used  as  a  symbol. 
This  doctrine  Apollos  knew,  and  it  being  the  central  truth 
of  John's  preaching,  could  well  represent  "  all  the  doctrine 
he  taught."  The  distinction  made  by  Professor  Hackett 
between  "  John's  baptism  "  and  the  Apostles'  baptism,  is  a 
distinction  as  to  certain  accidents  pertaining  to  those  bap- 
tisms, and  not  as  to  the  baptisms  themselves.  John's  bap- 
tism had  an  existence  independent  of  its  relation  to  the 
coming  of  Christ:  that  coming  was  a  mighty  argument  to 
enforce  the  baptism,  but  it  did  not  enter  into  its  existence. 
John's  baptism  was  preached  by  the  Apostles  as  well  as  by 
himself.  The  coming  of  the  Messiah  did  not  annul  that 
baptism;  it  only  changed  the  form  of  the  motive.    When  he 


244  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

had  come  and  accomplislied  the  work  of  atonement  the 
preacher  could  no  longer  cry,  "  Kepent,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand ; "  but  must  say,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  "  The  ex- 
traordinary gifts  of  the  Spirit"  did  not  enter  into  the  essence 
of  the  Apostles'  baptism.  Their  baptism  had  an  existence 
apart  from  "  extraordinary  gifts."  In  fact  these  gifts  con- 
stituted another,  and  quite  different,  baptism,  which  might 
or  might  not  be  present  with  the  special  baptism  of  their 
commission.  If  a  theorist,  Professor  Ilackett  would  say, 
"  Between  John's  baptism  and  the  Apostles'  baptism,  con- 
sidered simply  as  baptisms,  there  was  not,  nor  could  there 
be,  any  difference  whatever;  both  were,  alike,  coverings 
over  in  water."  But  being  a  most  learned  and  truly  admir- 
able commentator  he  offers  no  such  interpretation. 

Nor  is  this  the  representation  which  is  given  by  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  represent  everywhere  the  baptism  (not  some 
accident  pertaining  to  it,  but),  the  very  baptism  of  John  as 
having  a  distinctive  character.  If  the  view  of  baptism  en- 
tertained by  Baptists  will  not  allow  of  any  distinction  be- 
tween the  baptism  of  pots  and  cups  and  couches,  insisted  on 
by  the  Pharisees,  and  the  baptism  preached  by  John  to  pre- 
pare the  souls  of  men  for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  baptism  into  a  crucified  Redeemer  preached  by  the 
Apostles,  then,  their  view  as  to  what  constitutes  a  baptism 
must  be  an  error,  because  the  Scriptures  teach,  that  all  these 
were  baptisms,  and,  as  baj)iis7)is,  differed  from  each  other. 
John's  baptism  was  not  Jewish  baptism,  which  went  before 
it,  nor  Christian  baptism  which  came  after  it;  it  had,  as  a 
baptism,  a  distinguishing  character  of  its  own.  Jewish  bap- 
tism was  a  baptism  of  ceremonial  purification,  as  has  been 
proved;  and  John's  baptism  was  a  baptism  of  repentance, 
as  has  been,  in  part,  and  will  be  hereafter,  more  full}-,  proved. 
None  can  deny  the  essential  difference  between  thorough 
ceremonial  purity  and  thorough  godly  sorrow  for  sin ;  our 
view,  then,  meets  the  demand  of  Scripture  for  diversity  in 
the  baptism,  in  the  condition  of  the  body  in  the  one  case  and 
of  the  soul  in  the  other;  the  Baptist  view  cannot  possibly 


John's  commission.  245 

do  it,  for  with  them  it  is  an  axiom,  tliat  "  a  baptism  is  a  bap- 
tism." This  is  conceded  when,  unable  to  find  under  the 
theory  any  possible  distinction  in  the  baptisms,  resort  is  had 
to  distinction  in  the  accidental  a-ppendages  of  the  baptism.  If 
I  want  to  know  the  difference  in  nature  between  the  baptism 
of  Ishmael  and  the  baptism  of  Satyrus,  I  do  not  want  a  dis- 
sertation on  the  time,  or  place,  or  persons,  or  circumstances 
of  any  kind  gathering  around  those  baptisms ;  but  I  want  to 
know,  what  diflference  there  is  between  those  things  which 
make  them  baptisms,  and  without  which  there  would  be  no 
baptism.  To  this  the  only  answer  that  can  be  given  is,  that 
the  one  baptism  is  a  condition  of  thorough  intoxication  in- 
duced by  wine;  and  the  other  baptism  is  a  condition  of 
thorough  stupefaction  induced  by  an  opiate.  If  the  theory 
can  present  nothing  but  difference  of  accident,  when  the 
demand  is  for  difference  of  essence,  it  is  necessarily  a  failure. 
It  cannot  take  the  first  step  toward  the  expounding  of  the 
baptisms  of  the  Bible. 

Subjective  Genitive. 

"Winer  (p.  186)  says  (and  other  grammarians  agree  with 
him),  that  the  simple  grammatical  form  of  a  defining  geni- 
tive does  not  decide  whether  the  relation  of  the  detinino; 
word  be  that  of  a  subjective  or  objective  genitive.  "  The 
decision  between  the  subjective  and  the  objective  genitive 
rests  in  many  passages  not  with  the  grammarian  but  with 
the  exegete,  and  the  latter  in  making  it  must  give  careful 
attention  to  parallel  passages  also." 

"  In  Phil.  4 :  7  ££>>jv5j  Qzoo  can  only  mean  the  peace  (of  soul) 
that  God  gives,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Apostles  to 

wish   their   readers   ecpyjvrjv  and  dsou.      That  duaioauvr^  Ttiarewq  (a 

single  notion:  faith-righteousness),  Romans  4:13,  signifies 
righteousness  which  faith  brings  with  it,  is  manifest  from  the 
more   frequent   expression    '  the   righteousness  which  is  i/. 

Tziarziiiz^  (Roni.  9  :  30  ;    10  :  6).     In  Heb.  3  :  13  aKdzri  r?;?  aixapriac, 

is  the  subjective  genitive."  So,  we  say,  ^dTztwim  iiera'^uiaq  is 
the  subjective  genitive.  If  "faith"  and  "sin"  can  pro- 
duce such  changed  conditions  of  the  soul  as  are  denoted  by 


246  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

"righteousness"  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  "  deceit"  on  the 
other  hand,  then  there  can  be  no  embarrassment  in  attribu- 
ting to  "repentance"  the  office  of  changing  the  condition 
of  the  soul  in  that  thorough  manner  indicated  by  [in-Ttaim. 
"Winer,  however  (p.  188),  places  this  phrase  under  the  head 
of  "  more  remote  internal  relations,"  and  translates  '■'■hai^tism 
engaging  to  repentance." 

If  this  baptism  to  which  we  are  to  be  engaged  were  a 
baptism  effected  by  divine  truth,  or  by  the  divine  Spirit,  it 
would  come  to  the  same  thing  as  in  our  interpretation ;  but 
this,  very  clearly,  is  not  the  idea;  it  is  a  ritual  baptism. 
And  against  this  there  are  objections,  philological,  exeget- 
ical,  and  theological.  1.  It  is  yet  to  be  proved,  that  l^dTtrcffiia 
has  any  usage  which  identifies  its  origin  with  the  primary, 
physical,  use  of  fianrH^w.  If  such  proof  can  be  adduced,  it 
remains  to  be  proved,  that  such  usage  can  apply  to  living 
men  and  women  who  are  not  to  be  deprived  of  life.  2.  The 
exegete  who  Avill  observe  the  counsel  of  Winer  and  "  give 
careful  attention  to  parallel  passages  before  he  decides," 
will  find  his  way  barred  against  an  exegesis  which  would 
put  men  and  women  within  a  water  covering.  Some  of 
these  passages  will  soon  claim,  our  attention,  and  are,  there- 
fore, now  passed  by;  but  there  is  one,  Heb.  6  :  2,  [iar^nffiiibv 
dtdayrji;  baptisms  of  doctvine,  which  lies  without  our  present 
range  of  inquiry,  at  which  we  may  glance. 

Winer  says,  that  this  is  a  difficult  passage,  and  in  this 
judgment  commentators,  generally,  are  agreed.  Will  not 
the  passage  receive  elucidation  by  accepting  the  defining 
wo|»tl,  8cda/r,e;,  US  the  subjcctive  gcnitivc,  and  the  phrase 
j3u-u(7/j.wv  ("nda'/Yiq  as  explicative  of  the  preceding  "repentance 
from  dead  works,"  and  "faith  toward  God  "  =  baptisms  of 
doctrine?  Does  not  the  structure  of  the  passage  call  for 
such  interpretation  ?  Is  not  the  plural  form,  /Sa-rt^r/xoiv,  thus 
accounted  for?  AVas  not  the  doctrine  of  repentance  the 
ba[)tizing  power  in  John's  ministry,  and  the  doctrines  of 
repentance  and  faith  the  conjoint  baptizing  power  in  the 
Apostles'  ministry  =  "  Testifying  both  to  the  Jews  and  also 
to  the  Greeks  repentance  toward  God  and  faith  toward  our 


John's  commission.  247 

Lord  Jesus  Christ?"  Does  not  such  interpretation  place 
the  passage  in  the  most  absohite  harmony  with  all  other 
Scripture?  If  such  interpretation  be  accepted,  then,  we 
deliver  the  (idiznaiia  psravolac.  from  the  cold  and  deadly  em- 
brace of  the  waters  (see  Winer,  pp.  192,  551).  3.  Theologi- 
cally a  ritual  baptism  "engaging  to  repentance"  is  objec- 
tionable ;  because  the  language  implies  that  those  baptized 
are  (at  their  baptism)  impenitent.  But  John  forbids  men  liv- 
ing impenitently  in  their  sins  to  come  to  his  baptism.  They 
must  first  "  bring  forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance." 

This  was  well  understood  by  the  Jews,  as  is  conclusively 
shown  by  the  language  of  Josephus,  '■'•  [ianriGiim  auvUvm — Tr,q 
4)i)-/7i<;  -p()sr/.s:y.aOap!xivqq  to  come  for  baptism,  the  soul  having  been 
Jirsi  purified  by  righteousness."  It  would  be  difiicult  to 
present  a  more  correct  statement  of  John's  Repentance-bap- 
tism of  the  soul  (as  a  prerequisite  to  the  reception  of  the  rite 
in  which  this  soul  baptism  was  symbolized  in  its  purifying 
nature  by  the  application  of  pure  water  to  the  body)  than  is 
done  by  this  statement  of  Josephus. 

If  it  be  understood,  that  ritual  baptism  is  to  effect  a  soul 
baptism  and  make  it  penitent,  then,  I  answer:  This  is  not 
within  the  power  of  any  rite  to  do;  but  belongs  to  '-Him 
who  is  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God  to  give  repentance" 
to  the  souls  of  men.  If  this  baptism  be  resolved  into  a 
naked  profession  of  repentance,  the  answer  of  Scripture  is: 
God  demands  the  heart  and  will  be  satisfied  with  nothing 
else :  "A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not 
despise;"  and  precisely  this,  no  more,  no  less,  is  fddTrrcff/xa 
[xsravolaq,  and  it  was  essential  that  such  baptism  should  be 
preached.     John  did  so  preach. 

4.  This  interpretation  is  farther  established  by  that  of  the 
kindred  phrase,  xapitubq  rij?  fisravucac;  (Matt.  3:8;  Luke  3  :  8). 
Here  the  adjunct  cannot  possibly  be  anything  else  than  a 
defining  subjective  genitive.  The  "fruits"  are  not  such  as 
spring  out  of  twv  Sivdpwv,  but  rv^g  /jsravotaq;  they  are  not  figs 
and  olives,  but  justice  and  mercy.  And  as  the  nature  of  a 
fig-tree  determines  the  character  of  its  fruit;  and  the  nature 
of  the  olive-tree,  in  like  manner,  determines  the  character 


248  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  its  fruit;  so,  the  nature  of  repentance  determines  the 
character  of  its  fruit,  and  of  the  character  of  its  baptism, 
issuing,  by  the  grace  of  God,  elq  d^efftv  d./j.apTiaiv. 

Pasov,  in  his  lexicon,  says,  that  it  is  the  subjective  geni- 
tive which  appears  in  this  phrase. 


JOHN'S  COMMISSION  ILLUSTRATED  BY  THE  BAPTISM 
WHICH  HE  PREACHED. 

Td  ^dnrtaiia  o  ixrjpu^ev  Uwdwqq — The  baptism  which  JcMin 
preached. — Acts  10  :  37. 

npoxrjpo^avToq  ^liudwnu  iSd-TctT/xa  fieravota'r: — John  having  first 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance. — Acts  13  :  24. 

^Icodwrjz  6  /9a-T£(7T^?,  xrjp'jffncuv  xa\  Xiyiov,  MeravosTre — John  the 
Baptist  came  preaching  and  saying,  Eepent! — Matthew  3  : 1,  2. 

31  oral  Impossibility. 

It  is  a  moral  impossibility  that  the  ministry  of  the  Fore- 
runner heralding  the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  should 
consist  in  the  proclamation  of  a  mere  ritual  ordinance.  It 
has,  already,  been  shown,  that  the  [M-rcrr/xa  of  which  Peter 
speaks  in  Acts  10  :  37  could  not,  philologically,  be  a  dipping 
in  or  covering  over  in  water.  We  now  add,  that  John's 
mission,  as  the  Forerunner  of  Christ,  could  not  have  been 
to  preach  the  dipping  in  or  covering  over  of  the  Jews  in 
water,  because  1.  Such  preaching  is  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  Christianity.  John's  ministry  was  not  a  fully  de- 
veloped Christian  ministry,  but  it  was  Christian  in  contra- 
distinction from  Jewish;  it  was  twilight  Christianity,  the 
bcirinnine:  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Under  Judaism  rite 
and  ceremonial  had  a  prime  importance.  It  was  by  and 
through  them  that  truth  was  reached.  Under  Christianity 
truth  is  brought  into  the  foreground  and  directly  taught; 
while  the  observance  of  rite,  as  such,  is  not  taught  at  all  by 
Christianity.     Ritual  observance  never  appears  but  as  the 


John's  commission  illustrated.  249 

shadow  of  truth,  and  by  itself  is  as  worthless  as  a  shadow. 
It  may  be  received  in  all  its  shadowy  perfectness  and  leave 
the  receiver  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of  iniquity;"  . 
and  on  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  an  utter  destitution  of 
it  and  the  soul  pass  "  to-day  into  Paradise."  It  is  morally 
impossible  that  such  a  system  could  be  introduced  by  con- 
centrating the  attention  of  the  Jewish  people  upon  a  ritual 
ordinance,  and  insisting  on  its  outward  observance  as  a  prep- 
aration to  receive  Christ. 

If  to  this  it  should  be  replied:  "John  did  not  preach 
merely  the  observance  of  a  rite,  but  truth,  also,  as  connected 
with  the  rite,"  I  answer :  John's  ministry  is  characterized 
as  "the  preaching  of  a  baptism;  "  it  is  so  characterized  not 
once  merely,  but  many  times ;  not  by  one  person  only,  but 
by  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  Peter,  and  Paul;  not  before  Chris- 
tianity, but  after  Christianity;  not  as  something  alien  from 
Christianity,  but  as  in  full  harmony  with  it;  and  such  bap- 
tism so  proclaimed  by  John,  and  so  appealed  to  by  Peter 
and  Paul,  must  have  constituted  the  substance  of  his  preach- 
ing; and  if  so,  then,  it  is  morally  certain  that  "  the  baptism" 
was  not  a  dipping  in,  or  covering  over  in,  water.  This  con- 
clusion is,  farther,  established  by  the  fuller  form  [idr.riaixa 
tieravoiar:  whlch  appears  in  Acts  13  :  24.  Peter  in  Acts  10 :  37 
only  speaks  of  to  ^dr^naim^  the  well-known  baptism  which 
John  preached ;  but  Paul  defines  the  nature  of  the  baptism 
by  joining  with  it  a  limiting  term,  which  gives  to  it  the 
greatest  possible  precision;  it  was  the  [iannaim  jieravoiaq  ^ 
Bejjentance  baptism,  and  not  water  baptism.  If  it  should  be 
said :  "  This  phrase  is  elliptical,  and  the  ellipsis  is  to  be 
supplied  by  the  introduction  of  luaier  to  form  the  baptism 
and  making  repentance  an  accident,  a  shadowed  end,"  I  an- 
swer: The  expression  has  the  most  absolute  completeness 
as  indicating  the  nature  of  the  baptism,  and  the  introduction 
of  water,  or  of  anything  else,  to  change  the  nature  of  the 
baptism,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  sheer  change  of  the 
word  of  God.  If  it  be  rejoined:  "  We  are  at  liberty  to  sup- 
ply an  ellipsis  from  other  parallel  and  more  fully  stated  pas- 
sages, and  in  such  'water'  is  found,"  I  answer:  The  former 


250  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

part  of  this  statement  I  accept ;  the  hitter  part  I  deny.  I 
deny,  that  "water"  can  be  found  in  any  statement  made  to 
declare  the  character  of  John's  j;rt'rtc/u'«^.  The  point  before 
us  is,  "  the  baptism  which  John  preached."  Passages  which 
refer  to  baptism  in  other  relations  are  not  parallel  passages. 
A  baptism  preached  and  a  baptism  administered  may  have 
no  more  identity  than  a  substance  and  the  shadow  which  it 
casts.  A  reference  to  baptisms  administered  to  take  out  of 
them  "  water,"  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  it  with  a 
baptism  preached,  is  as  wise  as  the  taking  of  Omega  out  of 
the  alphabet  to  expound  Alpha  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
both  Greek  letters ;  or  the  taking  of  flesh  out  of  the  body 
and  insisting  upon  incorporating  it  with  the  soul  on  the  plea 
that  soul  and  body  make  up  one  person.  What  God  hath 
made  twain  no  man  may  make  one.  To  put  water  into  the 
baptism  which  John  preached  is  to  write  a  history  of  John's 
ministry  under  some  other  authority  than  that  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  Baptist  Church  declares  it  to  be  her  glory  above  all 
her  fellows,  that  slie  sternly  adheres  to  the  very  word  of  God. 
If  this  be,  in  very  deed,  her  position  among  her  brethren, 
then  she  is,  truly,  invested  with  a  pre-eminent  glory ;  but 
let  her  see  to  it,  that  she  puts  no  water  into  the  baptism 
preached  by  John,  lest  she  take  the  testimon}''  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  the  baptism  of  John  and  drown  it  in  the  pool  of 
her  theory,  and  for  this  great  wrong  she  be  discrowned  by 
John's  Lord  as  no  longer  the  pre-eminently  faithful  witness 
to  the  letter  of  his  truth. 

Does  any  one,  in  alarm,  ask,  "  Do  you  mean  to  deu}^  that 
water  was  used  by  John  in  administering  baptism?"  I  mean 
to  deny  just  what  the  word  of  God  denies,  and  to  afiirm  just 
what  the  word  of  God  afiirms.  I  mean  to  be  very  jealous 
for  that  excellent  glory  claimed  by  our  Baptist  brethren, 
and,  therefore,  to  follow  very  humbly  and  very  adoringly 
(as  otherwise  knowing  notliing)  the  verj-  words  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth.  And  in  doing  so  I  mean  to  distin- 
guish, just  so  much  and  no  more,  as  the  Holy  Spirit  distin- 
guishes between  the  baptism  which  John  preached  in  which 


John's  commission  illustrated.  251 

there  was  uo  water,  and  the  ritual  baptism  which  John  ad- 
ministered in  which  there  was  water.  John's  mission  did 
not  consist  in  the  administration  of  a  ritual  ordinance.  It 
did  include  the  administration  of  a  rite  in  which  water,  as  a 
symbol,  appeared  ilkistrative  of  and  lending  force  to  that 
repentance  baptism  in  the  preaching  of  which  (water  not 
entering  into  it)  his  mission  did  so  pre-eminently  consist 
that  it  is  ever  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  characterize  it. 
But  of  this  hereafter;  I  conclude  what  is,  now,  to  be  said 
on  the  baptism  preached,  so  far  as  brought  to  view  by  the 
Scriptures  quoted,  hy  one  other  reference.  3.  John  was  not 
sent  to  administer  a  ritual  water  baptism,  but  was  sent  to 
preach  repentance  baptism,  just  as  Paul  "was  not  sent  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel"  (1  Cor.  1  :  17).  The 
phrase  ,3d7TTC(T/xa  /j.szavuta';  means  nothing  more  or  less  than  a 
pervading  and  controlling  penitential  condition  of  the  soul. 
This  was  what  John  was  commissioned  to  preach,  and  this 
was  what  he  did  preach,  Mark,  Luke,  Peter,  and  Paul  being 
witnesses.  He  both  denies,  that  he  was  sent  to  administer 
water  baptism  as  his  ministry,  and  affirms,  that  his  mission 
was  to  preach  repentance  baptism,  when  he  refuses  water 
baptism  to  the  Pharisee  and  Sadducee,  and  calls  them  to  re- 
pentance baptism,  to  be  evidenced  by  its  appropriate  fruits. 
And  this  interpretation  of  the  phrase  used  by  Mark  and 
Luke,  and  of  the  great  mission  of  John,  is  confirmed  in  the 
most  absolute  manner  by  Matthew  when  he  says  (3  :  1,  2), 
"Li  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea,  and  saying,  Repent  ye."  Matthew  never 
uses  the  phrase  ^dnnaiia  iisravoiaq)  but  when  Mark  says,  "John 
preached  in  the  wilderness  the  bcqAism  o/ repentance;"  and 
when  Luke  says,  "  John  preached  in  all  the  country  about 
Jordan  the  baptism  of  repentance;"  Matthew  says,  "John 
preached  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  Repent  ye ! "  We 
are  thus  led  by  another  route,  guided  by  inspiration,  to 
the  identical  conclusion  to  which  we  had  previously  been 
conducted  by  philology  and  grammatical  law,  namely,  that 
l3d-Tiff/xa  ij.s-zavoiai  and  [xeza'^oeTre  are  but  different  forms  for 
expressing  the  same  conception — a  thorough  change  in  the 


252  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

coudition  of  the  soul  effected  by  repentance.  How  much 
"water"  is  there  in  MeTavoeiret  Just  so  much  is  there  in 
j3dnTi<T[ia  fisTuvdiaq  and  no  more. 


John's  preaching  farther  developed. 

Krjpufffftuv  fidnTtff/ia  [xsravoiaq  i.cq  d<p£(Tiv  d/iapTid>v — Preaching  the 
baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins. — 3Iark  1:4; 
Zuke  3  : 3. 

The  Text 
The  change  in  the  received  reading  of  Mark  made  by 

Tiscliendorf,  Alford,  and   Otliers,   iyive^ero  'Iwdw7j<;  6  [ianri'^cov  iv 

zfj  ipTjfiw  xai  xrjpu(T(T(vv,  brings  Mark  into  closer  conformity  with 
the  statement  of  Luke,  who  does  not  speak  of  John's  "  bap- 
tizing" but  only  of  his  "preaching  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance into  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  generally  (1:4; 
6  :  14,  25)  according  to  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  uses  6  iSaTtrH^wv 
to  express  the  title  of  John  as  "  the  Baptist." 

Whether  Mark  and  Luke  unite  in  stating  merely  the  fact 
of  John's  preaching,  or  Mark  be  accepted  as  stating  both 
the  fact  of  John's  ritually  baptizing,  and  the  fact  of  John's 
"  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of 
sins,"  we  have  a  broad  distinction  made,  tacitly  in  the  one 
case  and  expressly  in  the  other,  between  preaching  and  bap- 
tizing. That  John  did  ritually  baptize  is  unquestionable. 
That  his  oral  addresses  consisted  in  the  proclamation  of  a 
ritual  baptism,  and  a  call  upon  the  people  to  receive  such 
baptism,  is  (in  view  of  the  nature  of  his  mission)  a  simple 
absurdity.  But  all  inspired  writers  unite  in  testifying,  that 
the  grand  feature  of  John's  ministry  was  the  2)rcaching  a 
baptism;  that  baptism,  then,  could  not  have  been  a  water 
baptism,  but  must  have  been,  as  we  are  expressly  told,  a  re- 
pentance baptism.  Of  course,  the  ritual  ordinance  in  con- 
nection with  this  preaclied  baptism  (which  was  its  visible, 
symbol  exposition)  had  to  be  announced;  but  it  did  not  have 


John's  preaching  farther  developed.  253 

to  be  made  the  grand  theme  of  preaching.  There  is  a  ritual 
baptism  pertaining  to  Christianity,  but,  whatever  the  theory 
may  think  upon  the  matter,  neither  Paul,  nor  any  other 
minister  of  Christ,  was  ever  sent  to  preach  a  ritual  baptism. 
The  Christian  commission  is  to  preach  Christ  and  his  bap- 
tism (who  never  baptized  with  water),  announcing  the  exist- 
ence and  requiring  the  observance  of  a  corresponding  ritual 
baptism;  and  the  man  of  whose  ministry  it  can  be  justly 
said,  "  his  preaching  is  the  preaching  of  a  ritual  ordinance," 
cannot  be  one  of  those  whom  Christ  has  sent  to  preach  the 
gospel.  And  inasmuch  as  the  ministry  of  the  Forerunner  is 
evermore  described  as  the  preaching  of  "  the  baptism  of 
John,"  "  the  baptism  of  repentance,"  "  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance into  the  remission  of  sins,"  it  follows  (just  as  cer- 
tainly as  that  there  was  no  absurdly  incongruous  relationship 
between  the  preaching  of  John  and  the  preparation  of  the 
way  of  the  Lord)  that  ritual  baptism  was  not  the  theme  of 
the  preaching  of  him  who  was  "  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
from  his  mother's  womb,"  and  who  entered  upon  his  work 
"  in  the  Spirit  and  power  of  Elias"  "  to  prepare  the  way  of 
the  Lord  and  to  give  the  knowledge  of  salvation  unto  his 
people." 

Translation. 

The  "ISTew  Version"  translates  these  passages — "preach- 
ing the  immersion  of  repentance  unto  remission  of  sins." 
Alexander  Campbell  translates  a  parallel  passage — "im- 
mersion in  loaier  into"  (Christian  Baptism,  p.  116). 

Eiq  unto.  The  translation  of  e^c,  in  connection  with  "  im- 
mersion," by  "unto"  is  something  remarkable  for  Baptists. 
There  is  not  a  single  case,  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  in 
which,  in  such  relation,  they  translate  ek  by  "  unto."  The 
proper  translation,  as  shown  by  the  character  of  the  Greek 
verb,  is  into.  And  on  this,  up  to  this  point,  the  theory  has 
insisted  in  the  most  imperative  manner.  This  principle  has 
not  been  disregarded,  and  this  universal  practice  has  not 
been  discarded,  without  some  strong  reason.  What  that 
strong  reason  is,  is  sufficiently  obvious.     A  translation  in 


254  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

harmony  with  the  translation  of  this  preposition  in  every 
case  of  Classic  use  would  cut  up  the  theory  by  tlie  roots. 
Try  it :  "  He  preached  the  immersion  of  repentance  into  the 
REMISSION  OF  SINS."  Tliis  makes  an  end  to  the  theory  so 
far  as  John's  preaching  is  concerned.  The  "  immersion"  is 
made  not  "  into  waier,^^  but  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  and, 
of  necessity,  the  baptism  cannot  be  physical.  What  reason, 
it  may  be  asked,  is  assigned  for  so  marked  a  departure  from 
an  asserted  law  of  translation  ?  The  reply  must  be  given, 
There  is  none.  If  a  friend  of  "the  New  Version"  should 
interpose  and  say,  "  The  old  version  translates  '  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.'"  The  statement  of  fact  is  admitted  and 
we  add :  No  friend  of  the  old  version  ever  claimed  for  it 
perfection  in  its  translation.  ^'- For  the  remission  of  sins" 
states  a  truth  under  a  proper  interpretation  of  "  baptism  of 
repentance,"  but  "immersion  (in  water)  unto  the  remission 
of  sins,"  states,  on  its  face,  an  untruth  ruinous  to  the  gospel 
and  to  tlie  soul  which  confides  in  it. 

Lovers  of  the  blessed  old  English  Bible,  and  highly  ac- 
complished scholars,  have  not  failed  to  see,  and  to  declare, 
an  imperfection  in  the  translation  of  this  particular  passage. 
The  translators  of  tlie  New  Version  have  appealed  to  Pro- 
fessor Campbell  of  Scotland  as  authority  for  changing  "  with 
water"  into  in  water;  why  was  not  Professor  Wilson  of  Ire- 
land, no  less  a  scholar,  accepted  as  authority  for  changing 
'■'■for  the  remission  of  sins"  into  the  better  form,  '■'■into  the 
remission  of  sins?"  As  Dr.  Campbell,  wrong,  is  quoted,  let 
us  hear  Professor  Wilson,  right: 

"  This  rendering  of  t(<;  after  [iaizri'^ui  or  any  of  its  derivatives 
by  'for,'  as  in  'I  baptize  s-iq  iisravoiav,^  and  'Baptistu  of  repent- 
ance dr:  dfeaiv  ajm^trmv^  we  consider  wholly  unauthorized.  The 
correct  translation  is  m^o"  (On  Baptism,  p.  3-il). 

And,  so,  wherever  ei'<r  occurs,  literal  or  figurative,  in  a 
hundred  quotations  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  given  by  Dr. 
Conant,  he  uniformly  translates  it  by  into.  Why  was  another 
translation  reserved  for  the  Scriptures? 

No  defence  can  be  set  up  by  appealing  to  the  old  Bible, 


John's  preaching  farther  developed.  255 

because  the  new  Bible  was  to  be  made  by  "  scholars  compe- 
tent" to  amend  the  imperfections  which  were  declared  to  be 
in  it,  and  also  to  be  of  so  serious  a  character  as  to  be  intoler- 
able ;  and,  because  they  have  made  their  emendation  (?)  here 
and  should  have  left  it  perfect.  "Baptism  of  repentance" 
has  been  converted  into  ^^  immersion  of  repentance,"  and  ^^for 
the  remission  of  sins"  has  been  changed  into  "wn^o  the  re- 
mission of  sins."  A  defence  of  this  translation  by  an  appeal 
to  certain  possible  meanings  of  the  preposition  is  untenable 
for  reasons  assigned  in  Jud.  Baptism,  pp.  95-100. 

Far  be  it  from  me,  in  accounting  for  this  remarkable  de- 
parture from  a  uniform  translation  of  the  Classics,  to  retort 
the  language  flung  at  those  noble  men  who  gave  us  the  old 
English  Bible,  and  say  : 

"  They  virtually  combine  to  obscure  a  part,  at  least,  of  divine 
revelation,  that  the  real  meaning  of  the  words  should  be  pur- 
posely kept  out  of  sight." 

It  is,  indeed,  a  fact,  that  "  divine  revelation  is  obscured;" 
and  it  is  a  fact,  that  "  the  real  meaning  of  the  words  is  kept 
out  of  sight;"  but  I  do  not  say,  I  do  not  believe,  that  this 
was  of  design.  The  translators  of  the  Kew  Version  believed 
that  they  were  giving  a  correct  translation ;  but  they  were 
mistaken.  They  entered  upon  their  work  Avith  full  faith  in 
the  never  to  be  questioned  axiom — baptism  is  a  dipping  into 
water;  and  when  they  came  to  this  passage,  they  reasoned 
thus: 

"  BdizTiaim  must  be  translated  immersion,  but  if  we  translate  dq 
(as  wo  have  always  insisted  it  should  be  translated)  into,  we 
take  away  water  from  our  '  immersion'  by  giving  to  it  a  purely 
ideal  element  which  Avould  ruin  our  doctrine,  and  as  our  doc- 
trine cannot  be  w^'ong,  tlq  cannot  mean  'into;'  therefore,  we 
are  justified  in  translating  it  unto.  And  it  will  be  better  to  con- 
front the  self-contradiction  in  our  translations  than  to  abandon 
a  baptism  into  water  for  a  baptism  into  remission  of  sins." 

This  explanation  impugns  neither  the  learning  nor  the 
integrity  of  these  translators.  It  only  brings  them  within 
the  range  of  those  inlirraities  which  belong  to  our  common 


256  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

humanity  when  preconceived  errors  cloud  the  perception  of 
truth,  and  are,  unhappily,  taken  as  infallible  rules  whereby 
all  questions  that  arise  must  be  adjudicated. 

The  translation  proposed  by  the  President  of  Bethany 
College,  as  applied  to  this  case,  is  an  impossible  translation, 
"  Preaching  the  immersion  in  loater  of  repentance  into  the 
remission  of  sins."  This  translation  is  impossible,  1.  Be- 
cause, there  is  no  fully  stated  passage  in  which  "in  water" 
occurs  in  connection  with  [ia-xiaim  out  of  which  it  could  be 
taken  to  supply  an  imagined  ellipsis.  2.  Because,  philo- 
logically,  a  {iai:riaij.a  "in  water"  can  do  nothing  but  drown. 
3.  Because,  grammatically,  ^d-nTiaixa  cannot  stand  related  to 
two  incongruous  elements,  "m  water"  and  '■'■into  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  4.  Because,  if  a  second  ellipsis  is  sought  to 
give  "into"  another  relation,  we  are  not  interpreting  the 
Word  of  God,  but  making  it  a  waxy  mass  to  be  moulded 
after  the  forms  of  our  ignorance  or  of  our  prejudice. 

"New  Version." 

Remarkable  Collocation  of  Words. 

An  examination  of  the  entire  phraseology,  as  given  in  the 
New  Version — "  preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance 
unto  remission  of  sins" — shows,  certainly,  a  very  remark- 
able combination  of  words.  No  one,  untaught  in  the 
mj'steries  of  the  theory,  could  ever  venture  to  undertake 
their  resolution  into  any  intelligible  conception.  What  is 
to  guide  in  the  interpretation  ?  Are  Ave  to  understand  the 
language  as  complete  or  as  elliptical  ?  Is  the  "  immersion" 
literal  or  ligurative?  Does  "repentance"  define  the  im- 
mersion and  immerse  some  object,  or  is  repentance  itself  to 
be  immersed?  "What  is  the  force  of  "  unto?"  Does  it  de- 
note the  depth  of  the  "  immersion,"  reaching  down  unto 
something,  or,  in  general,  an  end  to  be  attained?  Does 
"immersion"  attain  unto  "remission  of  sins"  actually  and 
absolutely,  or,  only,  possibly  and  conditionally?  These  are 
some  of  the  inquiries  suggested  by  the  terms,  but  to  which 
they  return  no  rational  answers. 


NEW   VERSION.  257 

But  here  we  are  told,  that  we  do  wrong  to  look  upon  the 
language  as  complete  and  self-interpretative.  It  is  highly 
elliptical.  "Immersion"  is  to  be  made  complete  by  the 
addition  of  in  ivater.  John  preached  "the  immersion  (m 
water).'"  Of  what?  "  Why,  of  men  and  women."  Well, 
"immersion  in  water"  expresses,  and  expresses  only,  the 
condition  of  an  object  resting  in  repose  within  water.  Is 
it  meant,  that  John  preached  that  men  and  women  must 
occupy  such  a  condition?  "jSTo,  for  then  they  must  be 
drowned;  therefore  the  meaning  of  /5d;rT£<7,aa  is  changed  to 
one  (not,  to  be  sure,  found  in  Greek  writings,  but,  which 
being  quite  necessary  to  make  out  our  case  must  be  right) 
from  which  the  inherent  idea  of  the  word  is  entirely  elimin- 
ated." Certainly  that  is  most  heroic  practice.  And  what 
of  repentance  ?  "  This,  also,  is  eviscerated  of  its  life,  and  we 
convert  the  repentance  of  inspiration  into  a  jyrofession  of 're- 
pentance.' "  And  what  of  "  remission  of  sins  ?"  "  Why  we 
say,  The  immersion  of  men  and  women  in  water  making  a 
profession  of  repentance  never  reaches  '  unto  remission  of 
sins'  (that  is  Campbellism),  therefore,  we  make  a  double 
ellipsis  and  say:  'The  immersion' (of  men  and  women  in 
water,  making  a  profession)  'of  repentance'  will  not,  but 
true  soul  repentance  will,  avail  'unto  the  remission  of  sins.'  " 
Well,  this  is  keeping  np  a  good  courage  to  the  end.  Some 
would  shrink  from  so  flat  a  contradiction  of  John  as  to  deny 
what  he  afiirms,  namely,  that  the  baptism  which  he  2)reached 
did  issue  in  the  remission  of  sins.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
theory  necessitates  this  contradiction  of  John,  I  suppose  the 
theory  must  be  sustained  rather  than  the  Preacher  in  the 
Wilderness.  And,  yet,  notwithstanding  all  this  lofty  im- 
perialism of  interpretation  which  transforms  iSdTrriff/ia  into  an 
immersion  in  which  there  is  no  immersion  but  only  an  evan- 
escent dipping;  which  divorces  ^diz-iaim  from //eravoia?,  and 
establishes  an  unlawful  union  with  water:  which  takes 
away  fxsramna<;  and  gives  us  in  its  stead  an  empty  "  profes- 
sion;" which  denies,  what  .John  affirms,  namely,  that  his 
preached  baptism  issued  in  the  remission  of  sins;  I  say,  not- 
withstanding this  imperialistic  downtreading  of  every  word 

17 


258  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  this  Scripture,  and  the  mangled  rending  of  its  members 
from  their  living  relations,  I  am  disposed  to  gather  up  the 
torn  fragments  that  they  may  be  restored  to  their  divinely 
appointed  relations,  and  to  accept  of  them,  just  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  given  them,  without  any  attempt  at  re-writing  in 
order  to  make  them  square  with  a  theory. 

I  say  then,  that  ^d-zKyp-o.  iierw^oiaq  dq  aftaiv  ajiapriwv  IS  a  Com- 
plete statement  needing  no  addition,  and  that  it  is  the  fullest 
and  most  vividly  distinct  statement  of  the  distinguishing 
characteristics  of  Jolm's  preaching  to  be  found  anywhere  in 
the  Scriptures.  The  theory  can  neither  destroy  it  nor  escape 
destrhction  by  it.  The  meaning  of  fidTtrcfffj-a  has  been  suf- 
ficiently established  both  philologically  and  by  usage.  There 
is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  it  does  ever,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, enter  into  physical  relations.  And,  so  far  as  my  ex- 
amination goes,  it  is  never  used  in  physics  out  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. There  is  no  one  who  will  deny,  that  in  (iar^riaim 
ixtravoia':  the  latter  word  may  define,  and  be  causative  of,  the 
former  word.  That  this  must  be  the  explanation  of  the 
relation  of  these  terms,  in  the  present  case,  is  proved  by 
parallel  phrases  of  whose  import  there  is  no  doubt;  such 
as  fidr.ri(7!J.a  nupoq  xai  TT-^eo/j.aTiK,  this  cau  be  nothing  clsc  than 

"baptism    of  (by)  fire   and    Spirit;"    [id-Tiafia  aitxaroq,  [idr.Tiaixa 

daxptmv,  "baptism  of  (by)  blood,"  "baptism  of  (by)  tears;" 
^dizTtaiia  ixapTupou,  otherwise  stated,  in  immediate  connection, 
TO  fxapTupo'^  fddnTiffiia,  "baptism  of  (by)  martyrdom,"  othersvise 
stated,  "  the  martyr  baptism ; "  baptismum  publicse  confes- 
sionis,  "the  baptism  of  (by)  public  confession."  And  in  the 
parallel  phrases,  Lavacrura  poenitentise,  "  the  washing  of 
(by)  repentance ; "  Lavacrum  sanctse  regencrationis,  "  the 
washing  of  (by)  holy  regeneration  ;  "  Lavacrum  fidei,  "  the 
washing  of  (by)  faith."  In  all  of  these  cases  the  genitive 
adjunct  defines  and  establishes  the  baptism  or  washing; 
and  in  no  instance  is  the  baptism  or  washing  within  a 
physical  element.  The  reference  is  only  and  always  to  a 
condition  of  the  soul.  That  et<;  cuptai-^  aixapriw^  may  mean 
"into  the  remission  of  sins"  is  unquestioned;  that  it  must 
mean  this,  in  the  relation  in  which  it  here  stands,  is  estab- 


NEW   VERSION.  259 

lished  by  parallel  passages  and  by  Baptist  translations  of 
those  passages. 

What,  now,  is  the  sentiment  of  the  whole  ?  "  John 
preached  the  baptism  of  (by)  repentance  into  the  remission 
of  sins,'"  in  other  words,  John  preached  a  thorough  change  in 
ike  condition  of  the  soul  to  be  effected  by  repentance  and  to  be  ac- 
companied with  the  complete  forgiveness  of  sins.  "  Repentance 
is  the  gift  of  God,"  and  "  baptism  by  repentance"  is  baptism 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  by  none  other.  Is  this  scriptural 
preaching?  Was  it  a  kind  of  preaching  suitable  to  prepare 
the  way  of  the  Lord?  Was  it  preaching  becoming  him  who 
while  lie  cried  in  the  wilderness  "  Repent,"  also,  with  up- 
lifted finger,  pointed  out  the  Coming  One,  already  in  their 
midst,  exclaiming — ^'  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh 
AWAY  THE  SIN  of  the  world  ? " 

John  preached  a  baptism  which  he  did  not  execute;  a 
baptism  which  he  attributes  to  repentance,  and  thus,  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  fruit  of  which  is,  pardoned  sin  through  the 
Lamb  of  God.  Is  this  preaching  so  unsound  or  so  unintel- 
ligible that  it  must  be  converted  into  water  dipping  before 
it  can  be  received  ? 

Parallel  Passages. 

The  disproof  of  the  translation  and  interpretation  of  the 
theory,  and  the  proof  of  the  translation  and  interpretation 
offered  instead,  scarcely  need  to  be  strengthened ;  yet  it  may 
be  well  to  adduce  some  parallel  passages  outside  of  the 
Scriptures. 

BiiSanTCfffj-ivov  ei<;  avacffOr/trtav  xai  uttvov  uito  r^?  fJ.iOrj<; — Baptized  by 
drunkenness  into  insensibility  and  sleep. — Josephus,  J.  A.,  X,  9. 

This  passage  has  been  considered,  at  length,  in  Judaic 
Baptism  (pp.  92-100).  I  refer  to  it  now  as  being  identical, 
in  general  structure,  with  the  passage  under  consideration, 
and  as  receiving  the  same  translation  and  interpretation  by 
all  parties.  It  affords,  thus,  common  standing  ground  from 
which  to  look  at  this  debated  passage.  No  one  questions 
but  that  Josephus,  here,  represents  a  baptism  as  efiected 


260  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

ur:d  TYjq  fj-iOrj^ ;  that  the  element  within  which,  by  verbal  form, 
the  baptism  takes  place  is  dvaiffOTjuiav  xa)  unvov  as  indicated  b}'' 
ej?;  and  that  the  full  development  of  the  influence  of  this 
verbal  element  is  expressed  by  iSeiSa-TtfT/jiivuv.  Dr.  Conant  ac- 
cordingly translates,  "plunged  bi/  drunkenness  into  stupor 
and  SLEEP."  For  the  translation  of  [iz^jar.-cKrijho^  by  the  defi- 
nite act  "plunged"  there  is  no  authority  in  the  word;  but 
as  plunge  does  not,  like  dip,  take  its  object  out  of  the  ele- 
ment into  which  it  puts  it,  the  result  is  the  same,  whether 
an  object  gets  into  a  condition  of  "insensibility  and  sleep" 
by  pliinging^  or  in  any  other  way.  It  will  remain  within 
and,  therefore,  be  under  the  fullest  influence  of  the  invest- 
ing element.  Dr.  Conant  recognizes  "drunkenness"  as  the 
power  effecting  the  baptism,  and  "insensibility  and  sleep" 
as  the  verbal  element  investing  and  influencing  the  object, 
by  their  peculiar  characteristics,  in  the  corapletest  manner. 
The  plunging  part  of  the  exposition  the  theory  is  responsible 
for,  and  not  ftanri'^io  nor  the  method  of  putting  to  sleep ;  at 
least  this  is  not  the  mode  of  the  cradle  hymn — "Hush,  my 
babe,  lie  still  and  slumber."  If,  however,  the  theory  does 
inexorabl}'  demand,  that  cradle  and  babe,  drunkard  and 
cups,  shall  be  plunged,  even  so  let  it  be. 

If  Josephus  had  written  jSdnrcfffia  /liOij^  si^  dwatffOrjffiav  xa)  unvov 

neither  the  sentiment  nor  the  form  of  the  conception  would 
have  been  aftected  in  the  slightest  degree.  The  genitive, 
with  or  without  a  preposition,  is  constantly  met  Avith  in 
these  baptisms.  The  points  which  demand  attention,  and 
which  are  uncontroverted,  are,  1.  The  baptizing  power, 
ixiO-Tjq.  2.  The  element  within  which  (verbally)  the  baptism 
takes  place,  w^ruaOr^aia-j  xai  unvov.  3.  That  no  provision  is  made 
for  taking  out  of  this  baptism,  as  there  never  is  in  any 
jSdTTTCffim.  4.  Deliverance  from  this  baptism  must  come  from 
the  self-exhaustion  of  the  druid'Cen-making  power,  or  from 
some  foreign  counteracting  influence.  A  baptism  by  drunk- 
enness is  a  definite  baptism  so  far  as  excluding  other  and 
diverse  baptisms,  such  as  baptism  of  grief,  baptism  of  passion, 
&c.,  is  concerned;  but  it  is  not  definite  so  far  as  the  range 
of  its  own  power  is  concerned.     Drunkenness  may  produce 


NEW  VERSION.  261 

a  diversity  of  conditions.  Therefore,  Josephus  makes  his 
statement  specific,  as  to  the  varied  baptisms  of  which  drunk- 
enness is  capable,  by  saying,  I  mean,  specifically,  that  result 
of  drunkenness  which  is  expressed  by  elg  avaaOr^aiav  xa\  umov. 
In  like  manner  John  announces  in  the  most  specific  manner 
possible,  one  out  of  many  baptisms  of  which  repentance  is 
capable,  namely,  baptism  elq  a^eatv  a/iapncov. 

'Yitb  !J.iOr}<^  ftaxTc!^6/x£vo<;  elq  uizvov — Baptized  by  drunkenness  into 
sleep. —  Clemetis  Alex.,  II,  421. 

This  passage  from  Clement  Dr.  Couant,  again,  translates, 
"  Plunged  by  drunkenness  into  sleep,"  and  thus,  again, 
accepts  "  drunkenness"  as  the  baptizing  power;  "  sleep"  as 
the  verbal  element;  and  a  baptism,  as  expressing  a  condition 
in  which  there  is  no  self-limitation  as  to  continuance. 

'Ex  (no<ppn(Twrj(;  si':  TTopvecav  iSaTzri^oocn  TOir;  r'jdoval(;  xai  rolq  TtdOeffi 
yapi'l.sfrOat  doyiiariZuvTsq — Teaching  the  practice  of  pleasure  and 
passion  they  baptize  out  of  chastity  into  fornication. — Clemens 
Alex.,  II,  1212. 

This  passage  Dr.  Conant  translates,  "  They  immerse  from 
sobriety  into  fornication,  teaching  to  indulge  the  pleasures 
and  passions." 

We  will  not  stop  to  inquire  why  "plunge"  in  the  previous 
translations  has  been  displaced  by  "immerse"  in  this,  but 
call  attention  to  the  more  important  point  that  et'?  is  still 
recognized  in  the  ofiice  of  indicator  of  the  verbal  element 
of  baptism,  ^Hnlo  fornication."  The  baptizing  power  in  this 
baptism  does  not  appear  in  the  genitive,  nor  by  any  one 

word,  but  is  represented  by  raiq  "jdovmc;  xai  tuT<;  r.dOsat  x^^P^'i^'^Oa'.. 

The  agency  may  be  expressed  by  the  dative  (and  often  is  in 
these  baptisms)  as  well  as  by  the  genitive.  Those  persons 
who  accepted  such  false  teaching  as  inculcated  the  indul- 
gence of  pleasure  and  passion,  were  baptized  [rjdovaU  /.m  TidOsat) 
"  by  pleasures  and  passions  into  fornication  "  ek  -op-jtia^.  In 
every  baptism  we  have  a  thorough  change  of  condition.  It 
may  be  out  of  a  condition  of  chastity  into  a  condition  of  un- 
chastity,  or  out  of  a  condition  of  impenitence  into  a  condition 


262  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  penitence.  These  are  all  the  passages  exhibiting  this 
character  of  baptism  which  are  referred  to  and  translated  by 
Dr.  Conant.  As  my  present  purpose  is  to  frame  an  argument 
from  Baptist  translations,  I  will  add  no  other  quotations. 

The  passages  now  cited  are  in  perfect  accord  as  to  struc- 
ture with  that  nnder  consideration,  pjd-iz-taiia  iizra^Mnac,  dz,  dfsaiv 
diiapTcco>,  which  cannot  possibly  be  translated  by  Baptists,  in 
consistency  with  their  own  translations,  in  any  other  way 
than,  "the  baptism  by  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins." 
To  introduce  "water"  or  "a  profession  of"  repentance,  is, 
in  so  far,  to  make  a  new  Bible.  To  make  "  remission  of 
sins"  depend  on  a  water  rite  and  a  profession,  is  to  subvert 
the  Gospel.  To  convert  iSdnufffia  into  an  evanescent  intro- 
duction into  and  withdrawal  out  of  water,  is  an  utter  disre- 
gard both  of  philology  and  of  usage. 

On  the  other  hand;  to  translate  these  words,  just  as  they 
stand,  by  the  severest  grammatical  and  exegetical  laws, 
develops  a  sentiment  which  is  in  the  most  absolute  harmony 
with  the  general  teachings  of  Scripture,  and,  in  especial, 
with  all  that  is  demanded  by  the  mission  of  the  Messenger 
who  was  "  to  prepare  a  people  for  the  Lord."  The  letter 
and  the  spirit,  philology  and  theology,  make  common  de- 
mand for  the  interpretation  assigned.     All  the  genitives, 

fJiiOrj^^    nupoq,    ai/xazuq,    ddxpuwv,    fiaprupou,    publicae    COnfeSSionls, 

sanctse  regenerationis,  peenitentise,  fidei,  as  well  as  peravoia^, 
are  subjective,  and  not  objective,  in  their  character. 

If  the  evidence  is  not  adequate  to  sustain  the  position 
claimed,  the  deficiency  must  be  pointed  out  by  others;  I  am 
unable  to  perceive  it.  If  the  evidence  adduced  be  adequate 
to  vindicate  the  ends  for  which  it  is  adduced,  then,  the  theory 
has  no  standing  place.     The  case  must  be  dismissed. 

Alexander  Campbell. 

Alexander  Campbell,  of  Bethany,  Virginia,  has  occupied 
so  prominent  and  inJluential  a  position  in  sections  of  our 
country,  and  his  peculiar  views  as  to  the  "  design  of  baptism" 
are  so  largely  based  on  the  passage  under  consideration, 
which  views  are  practically  inseparable  from  very  serious 


NEW   VERSION.  263 

error,  if,  indeed,  they  be  not  essentially  and  purely  erroneous, 
that  a  consideration  of  this  passage  would  hardly  be  con- 
sidered complete  without  a  statement  and  consideration  of 
those  views. 

My  knowledge  of  this,  certainly  in  some  respects,  very 
remarkable  man  is  derived  entirely  from  his  writings.  I 
have  never  been  brought  into  contact  with  those  holding 
his  views.  The  impression  which  I  have  received  from  his 
writings  is,  that  he  was  a  man  of  much  more  than  ordinary 
intellect,  and  of  real  honesty  of  purpose;  but  that  his  history 
is  deeply  colored  by  an  imperial  will  and  a  profound  con- 
fidence in  himself,  which,  however  noble  in  themselves,  yet, 
do  always  jeopard  the  reception  of  truth  "as  a  little  child." 
The  quotations  made  are  taken  from  "  Campbell  on  Baptism, 
Bethany,  Va.,  1853;  Book  IV,  chap.  1,  2."  This  "Fourth 
Book"  bears  the  title  Design  of  Bcqjtism,  and  these  two  chap- 
ters are.  all  that  is  written  on  that  subject. 

"Design  of  Baptism." 

"  The  design  of  baptism,  and  not  the  action^  or  the  subject,  is 
the  transcendent  question  in  this  discussion.  What,  then,  is  the 
design  of  New  Testament  baptism  ?  We  say  of  New  Testament 
baptism,  because  we  have  in  that  book  '  The  Baptism  op  John,' 
and  the  baptism  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ.  The  Harbinger  pro- 
claimed '  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.' 
This  form  of  expression  is  exceedingly  familiar  and  intelligible; 
and  were  it  not  for  an  imaginary  incongruity  between  the  means 
and  the  end,  or  the  thing  done  and  the  alleged  puq^ose  or  result, 
no  one  could,  for  a  moment,  doubt  that  the  design  of  baptism 
was  *  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  This  is  the  only  purpose  for  which 
baptism  was  ordained.  John's  baptism  was  as  certainly  'for  the 
remission  of  sins,'  as  it  was  '  the  baptism  of  repentance.'  Baptism 
is  not  '  for  the  remission  of  sins '  in  the  same  sense  as  is  the  death 
of  the  Messiah,  but  it  is  in  some  sense.  If  Jesus  died  because 
men's  sins  were  remitted,  then,  John's  baptism  was  for  those 
who  were  already  cleansed  from  their  pollutions.  Translate  the 
pi-eposition  into  or  unto,  and  it  still  shows  a  connection  between 
baptism  and  remission  of  sin.  To  baptize  into  remission  intimates 
that  the  subject  of  that  act  is  about  to  pass  into  a  new  state. 


264  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

The  only  divinely  instituted  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  si7is.  To 
be  baptized  for  Christ  or  into  Clirist,  for  his  death  or  into  his 
death,  is  to  be  baptized  for  the  sake  of  the  rights,  privileges,  and 
honors  accruing  from  himself  or  his  death.  Of  all  these  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  the  leading  blessing.  We  are  not  commanded  to 
be  baptized  for  faith,  for  repentance,  &c.,  but  we  are  commanded 
to  be  baptized  '  for  the  remission  of  sins,'  not  for  the  remission 
of 'original  sin,'  not  for  the  remission  of  sins  yet  to  be  committed, 
but  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past.  Through  faith  and 
repentance,  we  are  commanded  to  be  baptized  for  one  specific 
purpose. 

"2.  Our  second  leading  inquiry  must  be,  In  what  sense  is  bap- 
tismfor  the  remission  of  sins  F  Causes  are  various,  original,  efficient, 
meritorious,  instrumental,  concurrent,  final.  For  most  minds,  it, is 
enough  to  read  the  precept,  'Eepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins,'  without  presuming  to  compi'e- 
hend  or  develop  the  necessity  for  it  It  is  not  a  meritorious  or 
an  efficient  cause,  but  an  instrumental  cause,  in  which  repent- 
ance and  faith  are  developed  and  made  fruitful  and  effectual  in 
the  changing  of  our  state  and  spiritual  relations.  It  is  also  a 
seal  and  pledge  that,  through  ftiith  in  the  blood  of  the  slain 
Lamb  of  God,  and  through  repentance,  by  the  virtues  of  the 
great  Mediator,  we  are  thus  publicly  declared  forgiven.  Bap- 
tism is  'for  the  remission  of  sins;'  to  give  us  through  repent- 
ance and  faith  a  solemn  pledge  and  assurance  of  pardon:  any 
other  baptism  is  a  human  invention,  'He  that  bclieveth  and  is 
baptized  shall  1^  saved '  associates  faith  and  baptism  as  ante- 
cedents, whose  consequent  is  salvation.  The  Apostles  in  their 
epistles  allude  to  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  moral  purification — a 
washing  aAvay  of  sin  in  a  figure,  declarative  of  a  true  and  real 
remission  of  sin — a  formal  and  definite  release  of  the  conscience 
from  thefeelinrj  of  guilt  and  all  its  condemnatory  power.  Baptism 
was  for  the  true,  real,  and  formal  remission  of  sins,  through  faith 
in  the  Messiah,  and  a  genuine  repentance  towards  God. 

"  Baptism  was  designed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  for  a  pledge 
and  an  assurance  of  pardon  through  the  Messiah,  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal;  it  is  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  or  the  remission  of  all  our  past 
sins,  through  faith  in  his  blood,  then,  and  in  that  act  publicly 
expressed  and  confirmed.  This,  most  unquestionably,  is  its 
place,  its  meaning,  and  importance  in  the  Christian  institution. 


NEW  VERSION.  265 

'  Baptism  doth  save  us.'  Not  that  there  is  anything  in  the  mere 
element  of  water,  or  in  the  act,  or  in  the  administrator,  or  in 
the  formula,  but  all  its  virtue  and  efficacy  is  in  the  faith  and 
intelligence  of  him  that  receives  it. 

"  To  him  that  believeth  and  repenteth  of  his  sins,  and  to  none 
else,  then,  we  may  safely  say,  'Be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
your  sins,'  and  it  will  surely  be  granted  by  the  Lord,  and  enjoyed 
by  the  subject  with  an  assurance  and  an  evidence  which  the 
word  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  alone  can  bestow." 

I  have,  thus,  endeavored  to  give  a  faithful  abstract,  gener- 
ally in  his  own  words,  of  the  two  chapters  which  Alexander 
Campbell  has  written  on  "  the  Design  of  Baptism."  After 
an  attentive  perusal  of  the  whole,  the  impression  left  upon 
my  mind  is  that  of  bewilderment.  And  I  think  that  that  is 
only  a  shadow  from  the  state  of  mind  of  the  writer.  If  Alex- 
ander Campbell  had  not  been  bewildered  on  this  subject  he 
never  could  have  started  out  with  the  italicized  premise, 
"baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  then  concluded  with 
the  declaration — "  To  him  that  believeth  and  repenteth  of  his 
sins,  and  to  none  else,  we  may  safely  say,  '  Be  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  your  sins.' "  Was  ever  premise  and  con- 
clusion farther  removed,  logically,  from  each  other?  The 
body  of  these  chapters,  also,  contain  statements  which  in 
their  relations  to  each  other  are  so  indefinite,  so  ambiguous, 
BO  incongruous,  and  so  irreconcilable,  that  the  conviction  is 
forced  upon  the  mind  that  the  w^'iter  is  painfully  struggling 
to  establish  harmony  between  admitted  vital  truth  and  the 
pernicious  error  of  a  sadly  misinterpreted  text  of  Scripture. 
I  am  heartily  glad,  however,  that  by  a  courageous  sacrifice 
of  logic  he  does  save  alive  in  his  conclusion  so  much  of 
God's  precious  truth  as  was  given  over  to  death  in  his  pre- 
mise. There  w^as  too  much  of  essential  truth  lodged  in  the 
mind  of  this  strong  man  to  allow  so  bald  and  so  portentous 
an  error  as,  that  "dipping  into  water  w^as  designed  of  God 
for  the  remission  of  sins,"  to  fruit  out  in  its  logical  results. 
But  the  danger  is,  that  Alexander  Campbell  would  be  less 
of  a  "  Campbellite"  than  any  of  his  followers.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  sow  among  the  masses  such  seed  as  loater  dipinng  for 


266  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

sm  remission,  without  a  crop  springing  up  which  will  call  for 
tears  to  drown  it  out.  I  have  already  said,  that  I  have  had 
no  opportunity  to  observe  the  practical  operation  of  this 
doctrine ;  but  if  it  does  not  turn  the  soul  away  from  a  cruci- 
fied Redeemer  as  the  source  of  remission  of  sin,  and  induce 
the  substitution  of  a  water-pool,  I  shall  be  agreeably  surprised. 
The  President  of  Bethany  has  embarrassed  himself,  and 
imperilled  others,  by  a  misunderstanding  of  that  great  an- 
nouncement of  John — the   ^dr^riaixa  iieravoiaq  li<;  acpeaiv  u/iapriwv. 

It  is  he,  not  John,  that  has  put  water  into  that  jSanrcff/ia.  It 
is  he,  and  not  John,  that  has  put  "design"  into  that  et?. 
When  these  errors  shall  have  been  corrected  and  the  true 
announcement  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  the  Forerunner, 
is  allowed  to  be  made,  of  a  baptism,  not  into  water  but,  into 
the  remission  of  sins,  effected  not  by  a  human  administrator 
but,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  working  through  repentance,  then, 
human  error  will  be  eliminated  and  the  pure  truth  of  God 
will  be  revealed.  Then,  it  will  be  no  longer  necessary  to 
plead  against  "  an  imaginary  incongruity  between  the  means 
and  the  end,"  but  the  divine  harmony  in  the  analogy  of 
revealed  truth  will  be  so  obvious  that  none  will  think  of 
"imagining"  incongruity.  ,  When  John  says,  I  baptize  {elq 
(isTavoiav)  for  {T)  REPENTANCE;  if,  "in  some  sense,"  then,  in 
what  sense  is  baptism  "for"  repentance?  And  if  not  "/or 
repentance,"  how  does  dq  a^satv  become  ^^for  the  remission 
of  sins?" 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  present  the  following  just 
views  of  Professor  J.  II.  Godwin  (Notes  on  Mark,  London, 
1869): 

"  John  was  both  a  prophet  and  priest.  As  prophet  he  preached, 
and  as  priest  ho  used  a  rite  of  purification  similar  to  those  uiied 
by  the  priests.  All  })ublic  purifications  with  water,  and  all  in 
whicli  one  person  acted  on  another,  were  by  sprinkling  or 
att'usion.  Tiiese  and  only  these  were  appointed  by  the  law,  and 
were  called  baptisms  (lleb.  9  :  10).  The  same  term  Avhieh  is 
used  for  the  rite  is  also  used  for  the  reality  of  which  it  is  an 
emblem.  As  there  was  a  circumcision  of  the  body,  so  there  was 
a  circumcision  of  the  mind.     The  baptism  which  was  the  subject 


JOHN'S   COMMISSION.  267 

of  John's  preaching,  and  which  was  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
was  that  of  the  mind.  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  the  cleansing 
of  repentance  and  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  declares  this  to 
be  the  only  baptism  which  can  purify  the  person.  The  baptism 
of  repentance  is  a  purification  which  consists  in  this  or  comes 
from  this." 

The  reference  to  Justin  Martyr  may  be  found  in  Judaic 
Baptism,  p.  277.  As  it  is  a  very  admirable  exposition  of  the 
phrase  under  consideration  I  will  here  quote  a  portion  of  it: 

"  Through  the  washing  of  repentance  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  God  ...  we  have  believed  and  make  known  that  this  very 
baptism  which  he  foreannounced  is  the  only  one  able  to  cleanse 
the  repenting.  .  .  .  For  of  what  use  is  that  baptism  which  cleanses 
the  flesh  and  the  body  only?  Baptize  the  soul  from  anger,  and 
from  covetousness,  and  from  envy,  and  from  hate,  and  behold 
the  body  is  pure." 

This  earnest  testimony  of  the  Martyr  witness  is  the  very 
truth  of  God.  And  whether  it  be  the  special  theory  of 
Alexander  Campbell,  or  the  general  theory,  which  he  shares 
with  others,  converting  those  precious  words — ^diznaiia  iitza- 
wiac,  eiq  acpeatv  ajiap-iwv  into  a  water  dipping  (!) — the  one  and 
the  other  alike  antagonize,  if  they  do  not  subvert,  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Word  of  God. 


JOHN'S  COMMISSION  ILLUSTEATED  BY  THE  KITUAL 
BAPTISM  WHICH  HE  ADMINISTERED. 

'"Eya)  [ikv  ^a-!ZTiC.o>   ofxan;,  i.v  udarc^  £i<;  fisravocav — I,   indeed  baptize 
you  with  water,  into  repentance. — Matt.  3  :  11. 

'Eycb  /lev  k^dr.Tiffaffa  v[j.de;  (^y)  vdan — I,  indeed,  have  baptized  you 
with  water. — Mark  1  :  8. 

'Eya)  iikv  udarc  (SanTt^^io  6fj.d<; — I,  indeed,  baptize  you  with  water. 
— Luke  3  :  16.  • 

These  passages  of  Scripture  show  the  presence  of  water 
in  the  ritual  baptism  administered  by  John.     It  is  put  there 


268  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

by  divine  authority.  Its  presence  is  essential  to  the  rite. 
To  take  away  the  water  is  to  destroy  the  rite.  This  water 
is  used  by  John.  lie  is  the  adnoiuistrator  of  the  ritual  bap- 
tism. In  the  baptism  which  John  preached  there  was  no 
water.  Of  that  baptism  John  was  not  the  executive.  He 
was  only  its  Proclaimer.  The  agency  effecting  it  was  re- 
pentance. And  as  repentance  is  the  w^ork  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  Author  of  the  baptism. 
Into  that  baptism  water  cannot  be  introduced  without  de- 
stroying it.  We  have,  then,  a  twofold  baptism,  or  one  bap- 
tism under  a  twofold  aspect.  In  the  one  w^ater  has  no  place, 
and  in  the  other  water  is  of  divine  appointment.  The 
question  which  presses  on  us  for  solution  is  this :  "  What  is 
the  position  occupied  and  the  purpose  served  by  water  in 
this  ritual  baptism  ?  " 

Before  entering  upon  a  detailed  consideration  of  the  ele- 
ments entering  into  a  solution  of  this  question,  as  furnished 
by  these  passages,  it  will  be  well  to  note  the  circumstances 
under  which,  and  the  ends  for  which  they  were  spoken. 
The  three  passages  were  evidently  spoken  at  the  same  time 
and  for  the  same  ends.  Mark  is  less  definite  as  to  time  and 
circumstance  than  the  other  Evangelists.  He  (1  :  7,  8)  only 
represents  the  person  and  baptism  of  John,  as  contrasted 
with  the  person  and  baptism  of  Christ,  without  assigning 
any  special  reason  for  this  being  done.  It  was  not  necessary 
to  assign  any  special  cause  as  giving  origin  to  such  contrast. 
The  contrast  was,  in  itself,  most  momentous  and  necessary 
to  be  taught  to  all  persons  and  through  all  ages. 

Matthew,  however,  informs  us  both  as  to  the  reason  and 
the  purpose  of  the  statement.  "A  generation  of  vipers," 
impenitent  in  their  sins,  had  come  to  his  baptism,  and  John, 
in  the  glowing  spirit  and  jealous  powder  of  Elias,  confronts 
them  and  declares,  that  his  baptism  is  not  for  such  as  they 
are ;  that  his  baptism  has  no  power  to  give  repentance ;  it 
is  not  the  very  fddTZTtff/xa  [leravoiai;,  but  Only  a  symbol  of  it 
{Iv  udari) ;  before  they  can  receive  this  latter  they  must  first 
have  received  the  former,  "bringing  forth  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance."    Thus,  John  separates  all  spiritual  power  from 


John's  commission.  269 

his  baptism,  declaring  that  it  has  no  other  power  than  that 
whicli  belongs  to  water,  Luke  presents  a  j-et  fuller  view  of 
the  case  than  does  Matthew-  In  addition  to  the  clear  teach- 
ing of  the  essential  difference  between  the  ^dr^Tiaim  iizxamiaq 
and  the  ^d—uaim  h  udan  eiq  iieravoiav,  and  the  necessity  for  the 
former  to  be  received  before  the  latter  can  be  administered, 
he,  also  (3  :  15),  teaches  us,  that  "  the  people  mused  in  their 
hearts  of  John,  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not;"  and 
therefore  it  became  necessary  to  place  himself,  as  adminis- 
tering a  powerless  symbol  baptism,  in  the  boldest  contrast 
with  Him  who  wielded  a  divine  baptizing  power  controlling 
all  the  soul.  It  is  under  these  circumstances,  and  for  these 
ends,  that  John  says,  "'I,  indeed,  baptize  into  repentance 
with  water' — a  powerless  symbol;  the  Coming  One,  mightier 
than  I,  shall  baptize  not  with  an  empty  symbol  but  '  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  giving  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  to  his 
people  as  a  Saviour,  and  executing  judgment  '  by  fire'  upon 
the  impenitent,  in  the  character  of  a  righteous  Judge." 

With  this  exhibition  of  the  circumstances  which  orio^inate 
the  statement,  we  are  prepared  to  enter  upon  a  more  par- 
ticular examination  of  the  phraseology  in  which  it  is  made. 
The  statement  as  bearing  upon  our  inquiry  is  one  of  the 
very  highest  importance.  There  is  not  a  word  in  it  which 
has  not  a  special  value  both  in  itself  and  in  its  relations.  It 
claims,  and  it  will  richly  repay,  a  full  and  fair  examination. 

New  Version  Translation. 

A  just  translation  is  essential  to  a  true  interpretation;  and 
such  a  translation  is,  itself,  an  interpretation.  It  is  well, 
then,  to  know  and  to  examine  carefully  the  translation  which 
the  theory  offers  through  its  New  Version.  It  reads  thus: 
"  I,  indeed,  immerse  you  in  water  unto  repentance." 

The  objection  which  stands  out  on  the  face  of  this  trans- 
lation is,  that  it  is  destructive  to  life.  Immersion  in  water 
deprives  of  life  any  human  being.  To  this  it  is  answered  : 
"We  do  not  mean  to  keep  under  the  water.  And  we  rejoin : 
Is  there  any  limitation  of  time  in  "immerse?"  No.  Is 
there  any  other  word  limiting  the  time  of  the  immersion  ? 


270  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

IsTo.  Is  immerse  used  in  English  (without  any  expressed 
limitation)  to  denote  the  drowning  of  men  ?  Yes  :  It  is  so 
used  in  the  following  quotations:  ^^ ^Subinersmi  (which  is  the 
French  for  drowning)  leads  oflt'as  the  most  fatal  of  accidents." 

"  And  imtnersed 
Deep  in  the  flood,  found,  when  he  sought  it  not, 
The  death  he  had  deserved,  and  died  alone." 

"At  length,  when  all  had  long  supposed  him  dead 
By  cold  submersion,  razor,  rope,  or  lead." 

I'here  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  word  is  used  in  English, 
without  limitation  and  by  its  own  proper  force,  to  denote 
death  by  drowning. 

How  is  it  in  the  Latin  language  from  which  "immerse" 
is  derived?  The  usage  is  the  same;  immergo,  without  limit- 
ation, is  used  to  express  the  drowning  of  men  in  the  follow- 
ing passages :  • 

Tyberinus,  qui  in  trajectu  Albulre  amnis  submersus. 

"  Tyberinus  submersed  (drowned)  in  passing  the  river  Albula." 

pelagoque  immergere  nautas. 

"  and  im?7ierse  (drown)  the  sailors  in  the  sea." 

And  how  is  it  with  the  Greek  (iami^o}  of  which  "  immerse  " 
is  given  as  the  translation  ?  Greek  usage  is-  precisely  the 
same  as  the  Latin,  and  the  English;  /9a-rCw,  without  limita- 
tion, drowns,  as  in  the  following  citations: 

B«7rr(^wv  avTov  antKTeivei', 

"  Baptizing  him  he  killed  him." 

Se  Kv/Liaac  ttovtov  ^aTiTi^uv,  oMaw, 
^'■Baptizing  in  the  sea,  I  will  destroy  thee." 

Then,  this  translation,  according  to  the  admitted  usage 
of  the  English,  Latin,  and  Greek  languages,  does,  of  its  own 
proper  force,  express  a  drowning;  and  it  cannot  therefore 
be  a  true  translation,  for  John  could  not  say,  "I  drown  you." 
No,  of  course  not;  and,  therefore,  we  change  the  meaning 
of  the  word  which  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  and  which  refuses  to 
give  any  limitation  to  its  immersion,  and  substitute  another 


John's  ritual  baptism.  271 

which  will  answer  our  purposes,  by  limiting  the  immersion 
to  the  shortest  possible  time,  as  our  theory  requires. 

And  so,  at  the  demands  of  a  theory,  which  confessedly  is 
murderous  under  the  word  of  God  as  it  stands,  God's  word 
is  remorselessly  changed  as  to  its  express  purport,  under  the 
plea,  that  it  must  be  done  to  escape  violating  the  command, 
"  Thou  Shalt  not  kill ! " 

The  theory  which  involves  its  friends  in  such  a  dilemma 
seems  to  be  not  a  little  objectionable. 

I  have  another  objection  to  this  translation  on  the  ground 
of  impracticability.  It  is  said,  that  it  was  made  the  com- 
manded duty  of  John  to  immerse  these  people;  so  the  New 
Version  reads  (John  1 :  26),  "He  that  sent  me  to  immerse 
in  water."  Does  that  language  divide  the  duty  of  immersing 
between  John  and  anybody  else  ?  No.  Does  it  intimate, 
that  the  dut}'  made  incumbent  upon  him  was  one  which  he 
was  unable  to  perform,  and  to  do  which  he  must  call  in  the 
aid  of  somebody  else?  No.  Then  did  John,  of  himself,  do 
what  it  is  said  he  was  here  commanded  in  his  ofiicial  char- 
acter to  do  ?  The  theorists  must  answer,  "  Why  no,  of 
course  he  did  not  and  could  not;  and  therefore  our  theory 
compels  us  to  add  to  the  commission  gf  John,  that  he  and 
the  people  jointly,  were  to  baptize ;  they  immersing  a  part  of 
their  body  by  walking  into  the  water,  and  he  dipping  so 
much  of  the  upper  part  of  the  body  as  they  may  have  left 
uniramersed."  And  in  what  part  of  the  Word  of  God  do 
you  find  all  this  ?  "  Well,  in  that  part  of  the  commission 
which  was  omitted  by  '  holy  men  of  old  who  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,'  but  which  has  been  added 
since  as  a  supplement  demanded  by  the  theory." 

I  entirely  agree,  that  the  theory  makes  the  duty,  which  it 
says  was  imposed  upon  John,  an  impossibility;  but  before  I 
accept  the  joint  offices  of  others  to  help  John  do  the  work 
which  was  committed  to  him  alone,  I  would  like  to  be  better 
satisfied  that  the  Word  of  God  does  indeed  impose  a  duty 
upon  one,  and  yet  mean  that  it  should  not  be  performed  by 
him,  but  by  somebody  else.  "  But  if  he  was  commanded 
to  immerse  men  and  women  how  otherwise  could  it  be  done 


272  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

except  ill  some  such  quasi  manner  as  this?"  I  cannot  pre- 
tend to  say  how  it  could  be  done.  I  can  only  say,  that  if 
John  was  commanded  to  immerse  the  people  in  water,  Jb/m 
did  not  do  it.  This  may  be  a  trifle  in  the  view  of  the  theory, 
but  that  theory  is  not  well  calculated  to  make  friends  which 
announces  a  very  express  command  from  God,  and  then 
lightly  profilers  to  us  something  else  on  the  ground  that  the 
command  cannot  be  obeyed.  Before  leaving  this  point  of 
interference  with  John's  ofiicial  duty  let  me  say,  that  to  one 
on  the  seashore  who  proposed  to  go  into  the  ocean  and  bap- 
tize herself,  a  Baptist  friend  objected,  "But  you  have  no 
right  to  baptize  yourself."  Kow  I  would  ask :  If  I,  being 
without  Scriptural  authority  to  baptize,  do  nullify  the  ordi- 
nance by  covering  all  ni}'  body  in  water,  what  precise  por- 
tion of  my  body  will  the  Scriptures  tolerate  me  in  unofficially 
covering,  and  the  ordinance  be  unharmed? 

We  ofiier  a  third  objection  to  the  translation,  questioning 
the  fidelity  of  the  report  as  to  this  divine  command. 

"We  object  to  the  translation — "I  immerse  you  in  water," 
1.  Because  the  form  of  the  Greek  does  not  express,  what 
the  nature  of  the  case  would  demand,  the  transition  of  an 
object  from  one  position  into  another.  2.  Because  the  prep- 
osition ma}'  denote  only  the  position  of  the  baptizer;  in 
which  case  there  is  no  provision  left  for  putting  u/zac  in  the 
water.  3.  Because  if  the  preposition  be  made  to  give 
position  to  vimq^  then,  although  the  language  as  the  language 
of  inspiration  may  be  ti'eated  lightly,  and  uimc;  may  be  taken 
out  of  the  position  in  which  we  were  told  Jolni  was  com- 
manded to  put  them,  still,  there  is  too  much  of  stiffness  in 
heathen  Greek  forms  to  allow  of  any  such  manipulation. 
If  the  forms  of  Greek  are  so  much  disregarded  as  to  give 
these  people  position  in  water,  there  is  no  help  for  them  but 
to  stay  there.     The  passive  form  of  the  verb  [ieliaTz-taiiivrj  h 

TO)  iTWiiaTi — i3£i3a7:Ttff/xiv7j>  Iv  ru>  [idOsi  rou  ffio/iuro^ — fitfiaTzriff/iivoi  Iv  zf/ 

xa/.ia — gives  position  to  the  soul  "  in  the  body  " — "  in  the  depth 
of  the  body" — "/n  depravity" — but  it  leaves  it  where  it  finds 
it.  If  lii.{idr.Ti(7w  wV./ijj  (with  the  preposition  in  composition  and 
with  the  active  verb)  be  regarded  as  an  equivalent  form, 


John's  ritual  baptism.  273 

"the  pickles"  will  still  remain  immovable  "in  the  brine." 
And,  in  like  manner,  if  it  be  insisted  upon,  that  (iaxrO^w  iv 
udarc  (3,aa?  should  place  its  lucklcss  objects  "m  the  water," 
there  is  no  outcome  for  them.  If  to  this  it  be  replied : 
Although  inspiration  has  omitted  to  make  provision  for 
bringing  men  and  women  out  of  the  water,  and  although 
Greek  forms  do  refuse  to  lend  any  aid  for  their  recovery, 
notwithstanding,  they  must  come  out  or — the  theory  must 
be  wrong.  We  accept  the  alternative.  And  in  proving  that 
alternative  to  be  the  truth,  will  proceed  to  show,  that  men 
and  women  were  never  put  in  the  water  by  any  command 
of  God. 

This  Ave  do  by  offering  a  fourth  objection  to  the  transla- 
tion, having  respect  to  e:?  ixezamiav  ^^unto  repentance." 

This  objection  is  based,  in  addition  to  the  merits  of  the 
case,  upon  a  patent  inconsistenc}'  with  a  long  series  of 
uniform  translations  made,  in  similar  cases,  by  Baptist 
writers. 

Whenever  an  object  is  to  be  physically  baptized  by  being 
moved  out  of  one  position  into  another  position,  the  appro- 
priate Greek  form  to  express  such  change  of  position  is  the 
preposition  ei<;  with  the  investing  element.  The  following 
passages,  with  their  translations  by  Dr.  Couant,  will  establish 
this  point : 

Ba-KTiaOivTi  d^  auro — Immersed  ijito  it  (Lake  Tatta). 

BdTZTitTov  eiq  Odlaaariv — Plunge  thyself  into  the  sea. 

Bar^ri^ajv  et^  rijv  Xirivrjv — Plunging  into  the  Lake  Copais. 

BaTTzicrac;  dq  to  aiim — Dipping  his  hand  into  the  blood. 

^E^d-KTiat  dz  TTj-y  Gfayriv — Plunged  the  sword  into  his  own  neck. 

BaTZTc^ecv  £tq  ydXa — Inimcrse  it  into  breast  milk. 

Bar.riX.tTo  £iq  poo'j — Immersed  himself  fn?o  the  ocean  stream. 

Ba~Ti(Tai  £i'?  TO  (TTyjOog — Plunge  the  Bword  into  the  enemies'"  breast. 

BaTtrc^dv-Mv  eiq  rijv  X{/j.vrjv — Plunging  Others  itito  the  lake. 

BaTrri'Cnuffc  eiq  to  vdiop — Plunge  u  poIe  into  the  water. 

''E^dTZTKj  d<;  Tov  divov — Immersed  him  into  the  wine. 

BefiaTZTKTiiivov  si^  uutt^v — Immersed  into  it. 

"EiSaTiTiffOrjv  eiq  xaTadoaetq — Plunged  into  bottomless  depths. 

These  are  all  the  passages,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  which  the 

18 


274  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

baptized  object  is  spoken  of  as  moved  in  order  to  its  baptism, 
and,  in  all  cases,  the  preposition  ei:;  is  used,  and  the  transla- 
tion by  Dr.  Conant  is  invariably  iiito.  Indeed,  he  says,  that 
the  distinct  office  of  this  preposition,  in  such  cases,  is  to  ex- 
press the  transition  and  entrance  of  the  object  within  the 
medium  to  which  it  points — "  The  preposition  into  before 
the  name  of  the  element  into  which  an  object  is  plunged  or 
immersed  expressing  fally  the  act  of  passi7ig  from  one  element 
into  another"  (p.  62).  Now  the  theory  says,  that  in  the  bap- 
tism under  consideration  the  objects  to  be  baptized  (men  and 
women)  pass  from  one  element  (they  say,  "out  of  the  invest- 
ing atmosphere")  into  another,  the  investing  water;  then, 
according  to  Greek  usage,  we  should  have  this  preposition 
with  the  element  (et?  vdcjp);  but  there  is  no  such  phraseology 
to  be  found  in  the  entire  history  of  John's  baptism;  and 
since  iv  vdan  cauuot  express  the  passing  of  men  and  women 
into  the  water,  and  cannot  express  the  resting  of  men  and 
women  in  the  water  (1,  because  it  is  not  a  fact  that  they  do 
so  rest;  2,  because  if  they  did  so  rest  they  must  perish)  we 
conclude,  that  ^v  'vSan  is  illegitimately  united  with  fiaTzri'^m  to 
express  the  element  loithin  which  the  baptism  takes  place; 
the  true  relation  of  the  verb  being  with  iizravoiav^  which  pre- 
sents, in  ei?,  a  certificate  of  wedlock  which  cannot  be  set 

aside. 

Objection. 

If  it  should  be  objected,  that  dq  /urdvocav  is  not  a  physical 
element  and  therefore  cannot  represent  the  element  of 
John's  ritual  baptism ;  it  may  be  replied :  1.  To  say  that 
John's  ritual  baptism  must  be  icithin  a  physical  element  is 
an  assumption  of  the  whole  question.  2.  Baptisms  are 
abundantly  met  with  in  which  physical  elements  (water, 
wine,  blood,  tears,)  appear  without  the  baptism  taking  place 
within  those  elements.  They  are  present,  solely,  in  the  char- 
acter of  agencies.  If  it  be  objected  :  Water  cannot  eifect  a 
baptism  e^c  /isravowA  I  answer :  That  is  precisely  the  doctrine 
which  John  makes  to  ring  in  the  ears  of  impenitent  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees.  It  cannot  give  repentance  nor  remit  sins. 
But  water  has  a  power  which  makes  it  meet  to  appear  in  a 


John's  ritual  baptism.  275 

ritual  baptism  st^  iisra^oiav.  It  has  a  symbol  power.  It  can 
symbolize  the  purifying  nature  of  "  repentance,"  and  the 
purified  condition  consequent  upon  "the  remission  of  sins," 
and  the  purifying  power  of  the  atoning  blood  of  "  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  Water, 
then,  may  appear  in  John's  ritual  baptism  as  fulfilling  an 
ofiice  which  such  ritual  baptism  demands,  and  which  is 
properly  expressed  hy  h  vdan  £lq  [leravuiav.  The  exigency  of 
the  case  requires  the  presence  of  water  as  a  symbol  agency, 
and  the  language  of  inspiration  responds  to  the  demand 
most  absohitely.  3.  Eiq  ii^Tavoiav,  as  a  verbal  element,  may  as 
truly  indicate  a  baptism  and  point  out  its  essential  thought, 
as  can  a  physical  element ;  and  in  doing  so  it  requires  the 
same  translation. 

This  is  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Oonant,  both  in  principle 
and  in  practice,  in  all  cases  outside  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
following  are  examples  of  such  passages: 

BsiSanrcffrjJvov  eiq  oyaKrOrjffiav — "  Pkinged  into  StupOT." 
Banrc^o/xBvo^  ei?  v-vov — "  Phmged  into  sleep." 
Banri'^ooai  elq  Tzop'^ziav — "-Immerse  into  fornication." 

'EoxvQ  of  these  are  baptisms  within  a  phj^sical  element. 
They  have,  however,  the  same  verbal  form  and  require  the 
same  translation.  But  while  not  loithin  physical  elements, 
two  of  them  are  eflfected  by  wine,  a  physical  element,  as  the 
agency ;  not,  however,  simply  as  a  fluid,  but  as  a  fluid  pos- 
sessed of  a  quality  which,  when  drunk,  is  capable  of  in- 
ducing, 1,  a  condition  of  drunkenness;  2,  a  condition  of 
stupor.  To  express  this  complete  influence  (not  to  express 
immersion.,  which  has  no  existence)  an  admirably  adapted 
verbal  form,  borrowed  from  physical  baptisms,  is  employed 
— eiq  avaiaOricia-^ — si<;  vttvov.  Wine  is  the  efficient  cause  of  these 
baptisms.  It  has  the  power,  not  through  immersion  but 
through  drinking,  to  cause  the  conditions  of  complete  stupor 
and  profound  sleep.  Water  has  no  power,  either  simply  as 
a  fluid  or  by  its  use  in  any  particular  form,  to  eft'ect  soul 
repentance.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  used  for  any  such  pur- 
pose.    But  when  water,  in  certain  religious  rites,  is  applied 


276  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

to  objects,  -it  has  a  power  which  wine  has  not,  namely,  to 
make  such  objects  ceremonially  pure,  or,  to  symbolize  spiritual 
purity.  For  this  reason  (because  of  its  symbolly  purifying 
power)  John  was  commissioned  to  use  water  in  the  ritual 
administration  of  his  baptism  ei'?  iisravoiav.  And  to  express 
this  the  language  of  inspiration  has  the  most  perfect  adap- 
tation, Iv  vdarc  el<:  fisravotav.  We  insist,  therefore,  upon  our 
objection  to  the  translation  iinio  repentance,  and  declare  it 
to  be  indefensible  whether  viewed  philologically,  grammati- 
cally, theologically,  or  in  the  light  of  the  translation  of  all 
kindred  passages,  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  by  Baptists 
themselves. 

Dr.  Carson. 

Dr.  Carson  being  of  supreme  authority  among  the  friends 
of  the  theory,  and  having  no  superior  in  the  ability  which 
he  has  brought  to  its  support,  it  would  be  unsatisfactory  not 
to  present,  in  full,  his  views  on  this  most  important  passage. 
I  will  therefore  make  an  exhibit  of  all  his  points. 

His  translation  (p.  121)  of  Matt.  3  :  11,  "  I  baptize  you  in 
water,"  leaves  out  eiq  fieravoiav,  nor  does  he  once  in  all  his 
discussion  of  the  passage  allude  to  these  vital  words.  To 
leave  out  Hamlet  from  Hamlet  is  the  merest  trifle  compared 
with  the  omission  of  these  words  in  a  critical  consideration 
of  this  passage.  Dr.  Carson  might  as  well  take  out  from 
the  Bible  all  that  it  says  of  the  Lamb  slain,  from  Abel's 
altar  in  Genesis  to  "  the  Lamb  slain,  as  it  were,  in  the  midst 
of  the  throne,"  in  Revelation,  and  hold  forth  to  the  world 
the  mangled  fragment  which  remained  as  the  Word  of  God, 
as  to  take  ek  uxzawim  out  of  this  passage,  and  present  "Eym 
(iamiZo^  iv  vdari  as  the  baptism  of  John.  Having,  thus,  sum- 
marily dismissed  the  defendant  and  his  witnesses  from  the 
court-room,  he  goes  on  to  hear  the  plaintiff  and  his  tes- 
timony, arriving  at  a  result  as  self-satisfying  as  might  be 
anticipated  under  so  full  and  impartial  a  hearing. 

The  whole  discussion  proceeds,  1.  On  the  assumption  of 
the  primary  and  literal  meaning  attributed  to  /SaTrrt'C"*;  which 
may  well  be  done  in  the  enforced  absence  of  ek  /leravotav; 


John's  ritual  baptism.  277 

and,  2.  On  the  assumption  of  a  union  between  ^aTzriZu)  and 
vdaTi  through  the  vincukim  h',  against  which  invasion  of  his 
rights  the  silenced  dq  can  offer  no  plea. 

The  interpretation  is  made  to  hinge  on  iv,  and  we  will  see 
what  can  be  said  in  favor  of  this  ex  'parte  case. 

Dr.  Carson  admits  (p.  291),  that  "  iianrlZu)  iv  is  not  so 
definite  as  /3ajrr:Tw  ek'  It  designates  merely  the  place  or  sub- 
stance in  which  the  action  is  performed.  It  is  the  verb  im- 
merse and  the  circumstances  which  must  prove  the  mode." 

Thus  Dr.  Carson  rejects  from  the  passage  iiar.ri^uD  dz,  con- 
fessedly the  stronger  form,  and  adopts  /Sarm'Cw  iv,  confessedly 
the  weaker  form,  and  which  could  not  lift  up  its  head  in  the 
presence  of  its  sturdier  opponent. 

He  adds  (p.  121):  "  It  may  be  surprising  after  all  that  has 
been  said  on  the  subject,  I  should  still  lay  any  stress  on  h 
in.  I  may  be  asked,  Do  you  deny  that  it  may  be  translated 
with?  I  do  not  deny  this;  yet  I  am,  still,  disposed  to  lay 
stress  on  it.  A  w-ord  may  be  used  variously,  yet  be  in  each 
of  its  applications  capable  of  being  definitely  ascertained. 
To  ascertain  its  meaning  here  I  shall  submit  the  following 
observations : 

"  1.  Li  is  the  primary  and  most  usual  signification  of  Iv." 

This  is  cheerfully  admitted  with  the  necessary  appendage, 
that  in  this  same  Gospel  it  is  used  thirty-six  times  in  the  sense 
with,  bi/,  as  is  acknowledged  by  the  Baptist  translators  of  the 
l^ew  Version. 

"  2.  In  Matt.  3  :  11  all  the  words  in  connection  admit  the 
primary  and  usual  meaning  of  iv.  The  most  extravagant  of 
our  opponents  admit,  that  iSanriZui  signifies  to  dip.  ...  I  con- 
tend, then,  that  though  Iv  may  sometimes  be  translated  with, 
yet,  it  cannot  be  so  used  here." 

On  this  position  I  observe :  1.  Among  "  all  the  words  in 
connection"  with  iv,  the  Greek  verb  is  not  to  be  numbered. 
It  is  in  juxtaposition  -with  it,  but  not  in  such  syntactical  re- 
lation as  to  bear  any  part  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the 
preposition  iv.  Its  relations,  in  this  regard,  are  with  the 
elided  dq  neravoiav,  and  can  give  no  determining  character  to 
the  translation  of  iv  odan.     2.  Going  beyond  "  the  most  ex- 


278  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

travagant  of  our  opponents,"  I  make  no  admission  that 
lia-ri%u)  means  to  dip. 

"  3.  I  have  produced  innumerable  examples  in  which  iv 
is  construed  with  this  verb  incontestably  in  the  sense  of 
dipping.  What  can  forbid  the  phrase  to  have  its  usual 
meaning?" 

These  "innumerable  examples,"  on  examination,  are  re- 
duced to  the  quite  computable  number — none,  no  not  one. 
And  as  to  the  "  usual  meaning  of  the  phrase  [ia-zi%<u  iv  idart," 
if  Dr.  Carson,  or  any  friend  of  the  theory,  can  find  one  ex- 
ample in  Classic,  Jewish,  Inspired,  or  Patristic  literature,  iu 
which  it  means  to  put  momentarily  within  and  withdraw 
from  a  fluid,  he  will  find  what  has  eluded  all  my  investiga- 
tions. 

"4.  Even  Mr.  Swing's  translation " 

This  we  pass  as  having  no  concern  with  it 

"  5.  Any  translation  that  can  be  given  to  iv  is  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  iSaTr-i^co  signifies  to  j^our." 

It  is  in  proof  by  evidence  that  never  has  been  and  never 
can  be  gainsaid  (see  Judaic  Baptism),  that  baptism  may  be 
eflfected  by  pouring.  ISTo  designed  momentary  introduction 
of  an  object  into  a  fluid  and  its  withdrawal  (=  a  dipping)^ 
was  ever  called  a  baptism  by  any  Classic  Greek  Avriter. 
But  while  a  baptism  may  be  efifected  by  pouring  (without 
the  remotest  reference  to  a  covering),  still,  neither  this 
modal  act,  nor  any  other  modal  act,  is  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  verb. 

"  6.  I  maintain  that  h  in  the  sense  with  is  not  a  Hebraism 
from  belli  which  signifies  iDilh  as  well  as  in.  'Ev  signifies 
v)ith  in  Classical  Greek  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint  and  the 
JSTew  Testament;  and  just  in  the  same  circumstances." 

Xew  Testament  writers  do  not  jjive  to  Iv  a  new  meaning, 
but  they  use  it  very  frequently  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  more 
rarely  used  by  Classical  writers;  they,  also,  use  it  with  the 
dative  case  where  Greek  writers  would  only  use  the  case. 
"  The  more  frequent  use  of  prepositions  to  mark  relations 
indicated  in  Classic  Greek  by  cases  is  characteristic  of  the 
style  of  the  New  Testament"  (Fairbairn,  Herm.  Man.,  p. 


John's  ritual  baptism.  279 

38).  "A  predilection  for  prepositions  where  the  Greeks 
employ  cases  alone  is  especially  noticeable"  (Winer,  p.  36). 

"  7.  Equally  groundless  and  equally  absurd  is  the  assertion 
that  the  fact  that  the  preposition  is  sometimes  omitted, 
recommends  the  sense  of  with.  Such  an  omission  can  cast 
no  light  upon  the  subject." 

This  "groundless  and  absurd  assertion"  we  venture  to 
make  our  own.  If  Classic  writers  usually  employ  the  case 
alone  to  express  instrumentality,  and,  usually,  limit  the 
preposition  to  mark  locality,  and  if  New  Testament  writers 
very  frequently  use  the  preposition  with  the  case  in  express- 
ing instrumentality,  then,  when  New  Testament  writers  in 
narrating  the  same  thing  use  the  dative,  the  one  with,  and 
the  other  without  the  preposition,  the  conclusion  is  over- 
whelming that  the  nude  case  must  determine  the  wavering 
usage  of  the  preposition.  This  conclusion  is  strongly  en- 
forced when  the  preposition  is  used  by  one  with  so  strong 
Hebraistic  tendencies  as  Matthew,  and  rejected  bj^  one  of 
such  Greekly  tendencies  as  Luke.  In  such  case  the  Hellen- 
istic use  of  the  preposition  by  the  former  in  iv  vSazi  is  made 
little  short  of  certainty  by  the  Classical  use  of  vdazt.  by  the 
latter.  "  When  the  dative  case  is  employed  without  a 
preposition  no  other  version  than  that  which  recognizes  the 
instrumental  dative  ought  to  be  admitted  without  a  neces- 
sity" (Halley,  p.  415).  "In  all  cases  of  the  New  Testament 
where  the  element  of  the  Baptism  is  expressed  by  the  dative, 
only  the  element  by  which,  not  the  mode  in  which  Baptism 
is  performed,  is  designated  by  the  sacred  writers"  (Prof. 
Stuart).  "But  the  dative,  by  a  further  extension  of  its  im- 
port, is  made  to  denote  whatever  accompanies  the  action, 
and  this  becomes  a  real  ablative  of  the  mode  and  manner,  or 
of  the  instrument  as  Acts  1 :  5  l^d-nav^  vdan.  We  often  find 
iv  used  for  the  instrumental  dative"  (Winer,  §  31,  7).  Thus 
Winer  adopts  the  "groundless  and  absurd"  idea,  that  the 
simple  dative  countenances  the  sense  of  instrumentality, 
and  that  where  the  instrumental  dative  is  employed  by  one 
writer  and  the  dative  with  iv  is  employed  to  express  the 
same  thing  by  another  writer,  that  we  should  regard  the 


280  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

latter  use  as  a  case  of  "  iv  used  for  the  instrumental  dative;" 
in  other  words,  that  the  iv  Idan  of  Matthew  and  the  idart  of 
Luke  are  equivalent  expressions  indicative  of  instrumen- 
tality. While  Winer  does  not  apply  the  principle  to  this 
particular  case,  the  presence  of  ei?  iisravoiav  and  all  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  case  require,  that  iv  uSan  should  he  regarded 
as  a  circumstance  or  symhol  instrument  attendant  on  the 
baptism. 

But  while  Dr.  Carson  elides  from  the  text  el^  fxeravocav, 
without  note  or  comment  by  way  of  defence  or  apology,  he 
elsewhere  (p.  298)  lays  violent  hands  on  [ianri'^uj  eiq^  and  de- 
clares it  to  be  an  unquestionable  "  immerse  into."  The  pas- 
sage in  which  he  finds  this  phrase  (Mark  1 :  9)  will  be  here- 
after considered  on  its  merits;  at  present,  I  refer  to  it  only 
as  the  occasion  for  the  expression  of  Dr.  Carson's  views  as 
to  the  legitimate  force  of  this  phrase. 

He  asks  :  "  If  in  common  syntax  such  a  phrase  has  such  a 
meaning,  why  should  it  not  have  this  meaning  in  the  syntax  • 
of  Scripture  ? " 

A  very  pertinent  question,  certainly;  and  just  such  as  I 
would  like  to  ask  of  Dr.  Carson  and  friends  in  regard  to 
Matt.  3  :  11,  and  Mark  1  :  4. 

He  adds:  "  But  this  syntax  is  not  confined  to  one  instance; 
it  is  found  in  many  instances.  Ek  is  connected  with  ^anri^m 
in  the  commission  (Matt.  28  :  19).  JSTow,  though  water  is 
not  the  regimen,  yet  it  is  the  meaning  of  the  preposition  in 
reference  to  the  performance  of  the  rite  which  must  regulate 
its  meaning  in  all  cases." 

"Must  regulate  its  meaning  in  all  cases  though  water  is 
not  the  regimen."  Very  good.  And  "  this  syntax  is  not 
confined  to  one  instance;  it  is  found  in  many  instances." 
Very  true;  Now,  let  us  turn  our  eye,  for  a  moment,  toward 
the  "many  instances  of  this  syntax"  together  with  their 
translations : 

BanriXu)  Iv  uduTi  eig  fisTavoiav — Immerse  wito  repentance.  Matt. 
3  :  11. 

BdTZTCfffxa  iitravoiai^  d^  (ifiaiv  dimfjriwv — Immersion  unto  remission 
of  sins.  Mark  1 :  4. 


JOHN'S   KITUAL   BAPTISM.  281 

BoKriZovreq  elq  to  ovo/j.a  rod  Tlarpoq  .  .  .  . — Immersing  in  the  name 
of  the  Father Matt.  28  :  19. 

BanziffOijTO)  .  .  .  ,  etq  a(fzai\t  6.iiapr!.u>v — Immersed  unto  remission 
of  sins.  Acts  2  :  38. 

Bej3a-!TTi<T!J.ivot  e^c  Td  ovofia  rod  xopiou  'It}<tou — Immersed  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Acts  8  :  16. 

'EiSaTTTiffOrjTe,  ovv  ej'c re; — Immersed,  then,  unto  what  ?  Acts  19  : 3. 

(^ ElSaTZTiaOrj/j-ev)  eii;  to  Uiodvvou  ^dizTtaiia — Immersed  unto  John's 
immersion.  Acts  19  :  3. 

' EfiaTzriaOi^lxev  elq  Xptffzdv  ' [rjaouv — Immersed  into  Jesus  Christ. 
Mom.  6  : 3. 

^ Eija-KriffOr^lxev  eiq  rov  Odvarov  duruu — Immersed  itito  his  death. 
Eom.  6  : 3. 

Ba-Tccr/jLaToq  siq  zdv  Odvarov — Immersion  into  his  death.  Horn.  6  : 4. 

'EjSaKrttrOrjTs  £(■;  to  ovopa  Ilauluu] — Immersed  in  the  name  of 
Paul  ?  1  Cor.  1  :  13. 

^Eijd-KTCffa  ei<;  to  Ipov  ovoixa — Immersed  in  my  own  name.  1  Cor. 
1:16. 

'El^anrcffavro  el':  rov  Mwuffr^v — Immersed  unto  Moses.  1  Cor.  10  : 2. 

'ElSanriffOyj/isv  eiq  iv  trcupa — Immersed  into  one  body.  1  Cor.  12 :  13. 

'ElSanriffOTjTs  ei?  Xpcardv — Immersed  unto  Christ.   Gal.  3  :  27. 

We  have,  here,  I  believe,  all  the  cases  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  the  syntax  paTzri^m  elq  occurs  with  a  difi'erence 
in  the  adjunct,  or  with  a  difference  in  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  same  adjunct  is  employed. 

The  cases  are  fifteen  in  number.  The  New  Version  trans- 
lates these  fifteen  passages  in  four  instances  by  "  into,"  and 
in  the  remaining  eleven  by  "  unto"  and  "  in."  And  such 
translation  is  given  while  loudly  afiirming,  that  such  syntax 
demands  into  for  its  translation,  and  that  even  the  feebler 
form,  (ianriZut  iv,  "  wiU  not  admit  of  any  other  translation;" 
such  translation  is  given  while  in  every  like  case  in  the 
Classics  the  translation  into  is  invariably  made;  and  such 
translation  is  given,  too,  in  the  face  of  Carson's  protesting 
inquiry — "  If  to  produce  such  a  meaning,  such  a  syntax  is 
ne'cessary  in  common  language,  why  should  it  be  thought 
probable  that  where  such  syntax  occurs  in  Scripture,  it  has 
not  the  same  meaning?     If  the  syntax  is  necessary  to  the 


282  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

meaning,  why  is  the  meaning  denied  it  where  the  syntax  is 
found?" 

And  what  apology  is  offered  for  such  marvellous  departure 
from  principle,  from  practice,  and  from  protest?  Just  none 
at  all;  we  are  left  to  guess.  And  what  shall  we  guess? 
Well,  1.  This  strawy  reason :  "  The  adjunct  of  the  syntax  is 
not  a  physical  element."  But  has  not  Dr.  Carson  forestalled 
any  such  ohjection  hy  his  declaration — "though  water  is  not 
the  regimen,  the  meaning  of  the  preposition  is  the  same?" 
Besides,  if  Dr.  Carson  had  never  stated  this  truth,  do  not 
such  baptisms  superabound  in  the  Classics  ?  Why,  then, 
should  they  not  abound  in  the  Scriptures?  True,  in  the 
Classics  the  verbal  form  of  the  element  in  such  baptisms 
is  not  stated;  this,  however,  only  shows  how  profoundly 
familiar  were  such  baptisms,  how  long  they  had  been  in  use, 
and  with  what  familiarity  thej^  were  employed.  It  could  not 
be  so,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  with  these  baptisms  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  These  baptisms  were  all  novelties  as  to 
their  peculiar  nature.  They  are  now  announced  in  the  ears 
of  men  for  the  first  time.  It  is  an  absolute  necessity  that 
the  statement  of  their  character  should  be,  to  the  last  de- 
gree, specific.  And  this  is  done  to  the  exhaustion  of  the 
power  of  language  when  they  are  announced  as  ^dnrtaiia 

lieravoiai;^  [iaTZTtaixa  ei'Z  jisravoiav^  ^dr^riaixa  £i?  a.(fea(.v  d/xapTicuv,  jSaTZTifffia 
el^  XfiLffToyy  &C.,  &C. 

If  our  "guess"  be  right  as  to  this  reason,  it  is  not  of  much 
worth. 

We  guess,  again  :  2.  "A  physical  element  appears  in  the 
rite  symbolizing  Repentance  baptism,  and  therefore  the  bap- 
tism must  be  witJdn  that  element."  To  which  we  reply  :  If 
men  and  women  are  to  be  thus  baptized,  then,  of  necessity, 
they  must  pass  into  this  water  element;  but  to  express  the 
passing  into  such  element  ^anriZu)  ek  is  essential,  while  such 
phraseology  with  water  as  the  adjunct  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  phraseology  which  is  found  (er- 
roneously interpreted  however  by  the  theory  as  to  syntactical 
relations)  fia-ri^u)  iv  is  incapable  of  expressing  "  passing  into," 
and  does  express  resting  in.   Besides,  what  are  the  facts  with 


John's  ritual  baptism.  283 

regard  to  this  phraseology  ?  Just  this :  it  is  found  some 
three  or  four  times  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  all  of 
which  are  repetitions  of  one  utterance,  or  at  the  most  by 
one  person  on  two  occasions,  and  such  utterance,  confessedly 
incapable  of  expressing  the  act  declared  to  take  place,  and 
confessedly  competent  to  and  necessarily  issuing  in  the  de- 
struction of  life  without  foreign  intervention ;  this  phrase- 
ology, once  uttered,  is  taken  to  the  rejection,  and  to  the 
subversion  of  phraseology  which  declares  expressly  and  ex- 
plicitly from  the  lips  of  the  Forerunner,  from  the  lips  of  the 
Mightier  One  come  in  his  redeeming  power,  and  from  the 
lips  of  his  commissioned  Apostles,  a  baptism  into  repentance, 

into  THE    REMISSION  OF  SINS,  lllio  JeSUS  ChRIST,  intO  THE  NAME 

OE  THE  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.     "What  a  reason ! 

We  make  one  more  guess :  3.  "  Our  theory  must  perish 
if  we  carry  into  the  Scriptures  the  principles  and  the  prac- 
tice which  we  observe  in  our  Classic  translations." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  about  that  conclusion ;  but  as  it 
must  perish,  anyway,  it  might  as  well  perish  in  the  observ- 
ance of  consistency.  It  does  not  save  the  bird  of  the  desert 
to  hide  her  head  in  the  bush  when  the  hunter  is  upon  her. 
She  must  die.  The  bomb-ketch  on  which  ten  thousand 
Paixhan  guns  are  playing  must  be  "blown  out  of  the  water." 
The  theory  can  never  live  under  such  dread  artillery  as  is 
let  loose  upon  it  from  the  open  mouths  of  words  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  teacheth. 

Baptism  into  Repentance  710  Model  for  Dipping  into  Water. 

Some  might  imagine  that  the  phraseology  "baptism  into 
repentance"  Avould  furnish  a  basis  on  the  ground  of  re- 
semblance for  using  the  water  in  the  rite  by  dipping  "into" 
it.  But  this  is  not  so.  There  is  nothing  in  "  baptism  into 
repentance"  bearing  a  resemblance  to  dipping  into  water  any 
more  than  there  is  a  resemblance  to  a  square  or  a  circle. 
Dr.  Carson  objects  to  an  argument  in  favor  of  pouring  water 
in  ritual  baptism  being  grounded  on  a  resemblance  to  the 
"  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  He  says  (p.  105),  "  Bap- 
tism, whatever  be  the  mode,  cannot  represent  either  the 


284  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

manner  of  conveying  the  Spirit,  or  liis  operations  in  the 
soul.  These  things  cannot  be  represented  by  natural  things. 
There  is  no  likeness  to  the  Spirit  or  the  mode  of  his  opera- 
tions. It  is  blasphemy  to  attempt  a  representation.  Bap- 
tism, then,  cannot  be  pouring  or  dipping,  for  the  sake  of 
representing  the  maimer  of  the  conveyance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  for  there  is  no  such  Ukeness.  Pouring  of  the  Spirit 
is  itself  a  figure,  not  a  reality  to  be  represented  by  a  figure." 

All  this  is  true,  so  far  as  any  imagined  resemblance  of 
form  is  concerned  between  the  pouring  out  of  water  and  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit;  but  an  argument  based  on  the 
harmony  of  words  and  of  conception  in  thought  would  be 
perfectly  legitimate.  But  in  the  case  of  "  baptism  into  re- 
pentance" and  "dipping  into  water,"  there  is  not  merely 
the  absence  of  resemblance  in  form,  but  there  is  no  resem- 
blance in  words,  or  in  conception  of  thought.  There  is 
no  such  language  as  "baptizing  into  water''  known  to  the 
Scriptures;  and  between  the  conception  of  a  "  hajiiism  into 
repentance"  and  a  ^^ dipping  into  water"  there  is  a  great 
gulf  fixed.  The  one  expresses  the  most  complete,  penetra- 
ting, pervading,  and  assimilating  influence  of  which  lan- 
guage is  capable;  while  the  other  expresses  a  momentary 
act  and  a  superficial  result.  There  is,  therefore,  no  ground 
in  any  aspect  for  deducing  a  water  dipping  from  a  repent- 
ance baptizing. 

It  is  possible  that  some  might  imagine,  that  the  phrase- 
ology "baptism  into  repentance"  was  derived  from  the  use 
of  the  water  in  the  rite ;  this,  however,  is  as  impossible  as 
that  the  foundation  of  a  house  should  rest  on  its  roof.  The 
baptism  which  John  preached  was  antecedent  to,  and  the 
foundation  of  the  rite  which  he  administered.  The  rite 
grew  out  of  the  preaching,  not  the  preaching  out  of  the  rite. 

It  must,  also,  be  clearly  understood,  that  there  are  not 
two  (really  or  verbally)  diverse  baptisms  in  the  preaching 
and  in  the  rite.  The  baptism  is  but  one.  The  diversity  is 
to  be  sought  in  the  agencies.  In  the  baptism  preached  the 
agency  is  appropriate  in  nature  and  adequate  in  power, 
namely,  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  he  efi'ects  a  true  baptism 


John's  ritual  baptism.  285 

eiq  fisTavoiav.  Ill  the  baptism  ritually  administered  the  agency, 
water,  has  neither  appropriateness  of  nature  nor  adequacy 
of  power  to  effect  such  true  baptism;  but  it  has  both  appro- 
priateness of  nature  and  adequacy  of  power  to  symbolize 
such  true  baptism.  The  baptism  then,  in  both  cases,  is  ver- 
bally the  same;  but  in  the  one  case  the  baptism  is  realized, 
and  in  the  other  case  only  symbolized.  It  is  manifestly  ab- 
surd to  suppose,  that  John  should  preach  one  baptism  and 
ritually  administer  a  wholly  diverse  baptism.  Whatever 
baptism  was  in  his  preaching  that  same  baptism  was  in  his 
ritual  administration.  And  this  the  Scriptures  declare  ioti- 
dem  verbis,  when  they  announce  that  John  preached  zd  ^dnnaiia 
{xsravoiaq  (Mark  1:4;  Luke  3:3;  Acts  13  :  24),  and,  in  the 
same  express  and  identical  words,  announce  that  he  baptized 
TO  iSdTZTiff/ia  /leravpiat;  (Matt.  3  :  11 ;  Acts  19  :  4).  The  proof  is 
absolute,  that  there  neither  was  nor  could  be  any  baptism 
into  water;  and  to  convert  these  Bible  baptisms  into  water 
DIPPINGS  is  to  reject  the  revelation  of  God  and  to  make  one 
for  ourselves. 

"We  have,  now,  passed  in  review  all  that  Dr.  Carson  has 
to  say  on  this  passage  which,  so  largely,-  pivjots  the  whole     "^   v<f 
question,  and  we  find  nothing  to  justify  his  mutilation  of  it 
by  excising  sk  ii^twMw^,  and  thus  converting  the  passage  into      "* 
its  contradictory — "  I  baptize  you  in  water.'"    We  have  found 
as  little  to  approve  in  the  New  Version  of  Matthew,  "  I  iin- 
7nerse  you  in  water  unto  repentance,"  or  that  of  Mark  (the 
translator  of  which  informs  us  that,  "  it  has  been  settled  that 
there  is  no  difference  in  signification  between  iSditru)  and 
/SaTTTf'Cw"),  "I  dip  you  in  w^ater.''     To  make  repentance  the 
end  of  the  ritual  use  of  water  {'■'■unio  repentance"),  is  to  sow 
seed  which  must  logically  fruit  out  in  all  the  errors  of  Camp-    -^, 
bell-baptism  or  something  worse,  for  Campbell  denies  that 
water   dipping   is   '■^for   repentance,"    while   inconsistently 
affirming  that  it  is  '■'■for  the  remission  of  sins." 

I  am  not  aware  of  any  other  objections  likely  to  be  made 
against  the  translation  which  has  been  given—"  I  baptize 
you  with  water  into  repentance;"  a  translation  sustained  by 
grammatical  law,  conformed  to  Classical  usage,  harmonious 


286  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

with  parallel  passages,  accordant  with  the  spiritual  nature 
of  all  other  I^ew  Testament  baptisms,  and  demanded  by  the 
very  nature  of  John's  ministry.  We  will  therefore  adhere, 
for  reasons  both  positive  and  negative,  to  our  position,  that 
John  did  baptize  into  repentance  with  water  used  as  a  sym- 
bol— "repentance"  being  the  complement  of /5c!rT£'?<M,  and 
"water"  being  a  circumstantial  adjunct  setting  forth,  sym- 
bolly,  the  nature  of  repentance  baptism  in  its  purifying 
character. 

"Eyu)  /j.£v  udarc  (ianri'^io  u/idg — I  indeed,  with  water,  baptize  you. 
Luke  3  :  16. 

This  passage  claims  consideration  in  so  far  as  it  presents 
differences  as  compared  with  the  parallel  passage  just  con- 
sidered. 

1.  One  of  the  differences  consists  in  the  elliptical  character 
of  this  passage  of  Luke  compared  with  that  of  Matthew. 
The  ellipsis  consists  in  the  omission  of  ei^  /leravoiav.  A  hasty 
judgment  might  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  the 
less  important  words  which  would  be  omitted,  but  the  con- 
trary of  this  is  the  truth. 

Professor  Crosby,  in  his  Greek  Grammar,  observes :  "  It 
is  a  remarkable  but  general  truth  that  ellipsis  omits  that 
word  which  is  most  essential  to  the  grammatical  structure 
of  the  sentence.  The  reason  is  such  word  will  be  more 
readily  missed  and  more  easily  supplied." 

Dr.  Carson  is  in  accord  with  Professor  Crosby  in  this 
doctrine  of  ellipsis.  He  says,  "  This  figure  always  grounds 
on  the  fact  that  the  elliptical  matter  will  always  be  suggested 
by  the  frequency  of  the  use  of  the  phrase,  so  that  it  cannot 
be  either  wanted  or  mistaken.  If  it  does  not  necessarily  and 
obviously  present  itself,  it  is  essentially  vicious  in  rhetoric 
and  utterly  unworthy  of  revelation"  (p.  328). 

Now,  the  ellipsis  in  this  passage  answers  very  squarely  to 
this  doctrine.  What  is  more  essential  to  the  structure  of 
the  sentence  than  the  absent  words  eig  ;j.szayoiav,  or  i3a-rt<7,aa 
/xerayinaq^  wliicli  are  absolutely  essential  to  give  completeness 
to  fiaKvU^oj'^     And  what  could  be  more  readily  supplied  by 


John's  ritual  baptism.  287 

reason  of  the  frequency  of  the  use  of  the  phrase  either 
formally  stated  or  more  briefly  referred  to  ?  Let  us  look  at 
the  frequency  of  this  usage,  not  throughout  all  the  gospels, 
but  by  Luke  alone : 

Luke    3  :    3.  Preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  into  the  re- 
mission of  sins. 
"      7  :  29.  Being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John. 
"    20:    4.  The  baptism  o/JbA;i  was  it  from  heaven  or  of  men? 

The  latter  briefer  statements  are  completed  by  the  former 
fuller  one.  The  same  writer,  in  the  book  of  Acts,  furnishes 
us  with  the  followiug  passages : 

Acts    1 :  22.  Beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John. 

''    10  :  13.  Preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ after  the 

baptism  which  John  preaclied. 
"    13  :  24.  When  John  had  fir'st  preached  before  his  coming 

the  baptism  of  repentance. 

"    18  :  25.  Apollos knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John. 

"    19  :    3.  Into  what,  then,  were  jq  baptized  ?   And  they  said, 

Into  John's  baptism. 
"    19  :  4.  Then,  said  Paul,  John,  verily,  baptized  the  baptism 

of  repentance. 

We  see,  by  these  frequent  allusions  by  Luke  to  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  "what,"  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Carson, 
"can  neither  be  wanted  nor  mistaken."  The  ellipsis  to  be 
supplied  must  be  from  Matthew,  dq  <iz-a-Mna-j^  or,  as  furnished 

b}^   Luke   himself,   [iar^ri(Tij.a  iJ.STavoic/.(;  elq  actav^  aiiapTtiov,    whicll 

difier  in  letter  only,  not  in  spirit.  These  are  the  essential 
words  Avhich  we  cannot  do  without.  And,  thus,  by  the 
doctrine  of  ellipsis,  we  are  brought  again  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  vital  part  of  John's  baptism  is  to  be  sought  not  in 
kv  udan,  but  in  ei^  iJ.eravolav. 

2.  A  second  point  of  difference  is  found  in  the  use  of  the 
simple  dative. 

Luke  is  persistent  in  this  usage.  It  appears  in  his  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  (1:5;  11  :  16)  as  well  as  in  his  Gospel.  He 
never  uses  iv  udan.  This  is  readily  accounted  for  by  his 
more  Greekly  style.     Mark  also  (1 : 8)  uses  the  simple  da- 


288  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

tive  according  to  the  Cod.  Sin.  and  other  authority,  which 
is  received  by  Tischendorf  and  Alford  as  the  true  reading. 
Origen  also  {TV,  253),  while  quoting  Matthew  and  John  as 
using  iv  uSazi,  quotes,  at  the  same  time,  Mark  and  Luke  as 
using  udazi.  The  latter  form  is  more  frequent  than  the  for- 
mer according  to  these  authorities. 

The  New  Version  translates  this  nude  form,  in  every  in- 
stance, "m  water."  Such  translation  is  contrary  to  the  gen- 
eral consent  of  scholars.  "Winer  (p.  216)  gives  Acts  1 :  5, 
11  :  16,  as  cases  in  which  the  dative  "has  passed  over  alto- 
gether into  the  ablative."  He  adds,  "In  all  these  relations 
prepositions  are  not  rarely  and  sometimes  more  usually  em- 
ployed with  or  without  a  modification  of  the  meaning.  Thus 
we  find  Iv  udari  instead  of  Zdazu  The  identity  of  the  two  ex- 
pressions in  sense  is  manifest;  yet  we  must  not  consider  one 
as  put  for  the  other"  (p.  412). 

The  reason  assigned  by  the  New  Version  for  the  transla- 
tion in  Luke  3 :  16,  namely,  "The  preposition  iv  is  obviously 
understood  before  udazt,"  is  neither  sustained  by  the  general 
merits  of  the  case  nor  by  the  doctrine  of  ellipsis.  The  con- 
clusion reached  by  the  New  Version  in  Acts  1:5,"  The  in- 
sertion or  omission,  therefore,  of  the  preposition  does  not 
alter  the  construction  or  the  sense,"  has  an  inadequate  foun- 
dation in  the  reason  assigned,  namely,  that  ISIatthew  and 
John  use  the  preposition  and  Mark  and  Luke  do  not. 

The  phrases  may  differ  immediately,  both  in  construction 
and  in  sense,  yet  agree  ultimately  in  a  common  thought.  It 
is  not  the  same  form  of  thought  which  is  expressed  by  "Seal 

ev  Tu)  8axru).{w,"  and  "  Seal  Tw  day.rvXiui ;  "  "  Kill  Iv  /Jw/i^at'a,''  aiid 

"Kill  fwiJ.ffaia;'''  "Nourish  ^v  ^dAazrj,"  and"  Nourish  ydXa-KTi'" 

"Baptize  Iv  uoan  £]q  iJ.eravoiav,^^  and  "Baptize  udan  eh  /i£rai/o:'av." 

There  is  a  power  and  authority  which  belongs  to  "the  ring" 
(king's)  with  which  "the  sealer"  is  represented  as  invested 
by  Iv,  and  m  this  power  and  authority  performing  the  act 
of  sealing.  In  the  nude  dative  this  conception  is  want- 
ing; while  the  sealing  is  quite  as  eftectively  done  "6_y  the 
ring."  So,  "  the  sword "  has  a  power  to  slay,  with  which 
"the  killer"  is  represented  as  invested  and  as  controlling. 


John's  ritual  baptism.  289 

"Milk"  has  a  quality  for  nourisliiiig,  and  "tlie  I^ourisher" 
gives  direction  to  the  development  of  that  quality.  "  Water  " 
has  a  symbol  power  to  baptize  into  repentance,  and  the  Bap- 
tizer  is  represented  as  invested  with  and  exercising  just  that 
symbol  power.  This  conception  has  no  statement  in  the 
simple  dative. 

It  is  noticeable,  that  the  preposition  is  never  omitted  by 
any  of  the  sacred  writers  in  speaking  of  the  baptism  by 
Christ  iv  nvevfiari  'Ayio).  This  finds  a  perfect  explanation  in 
the  relation  between  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  is 
ever  "in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  invested  with  and  acting  through 
his  divine  influence,  and  it  would  not  be  so  suitable  to  say, 
that  he  baptizes  Uvsuiian  'Ayico,  separating  him  from  that 
divine  inness  taught  by  the  Scriptures.  The  contrast  be- 
tween iv  udazt,  and  Iv  nvsu/j.azi  " Ayiu)  is  absolutc.  John  was  in- 
vested with  the  mere  shadow  power  belonging  to  symbol 
water;  Christ  was  invested  with  all  the  real  power  belong- 
ing to  the  Spirit  of  God.  John  came  "  in  the  Spirit  and 
power  of  Elias,"  and  baptized  with  the  power  of  symbol 
-water;  Christ  came,  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  and  bap- 
tized in  (invested  with)  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Under 
any  aspect  in  which  the  case  can  be  considered,  the  nude 
form  v8ari  sustains  the  conclusion  that  iv  udan  is,  mediately 
or  immediately,  expressive  of  instrumentality. 

3.  A  third  point  of  difterence  is  the  order  of  the  words. 
In  so  far  as  any  difference  of  interpretation  is  suggested  by 

the  order  of  the  words — fiaTzrO^w  iv  udazt  elq  iiezavoiav,  and   v8azi 

[ia-Kzi'^u}  eh  /Jtezavotav,  the  latter  Order  brings  ^anziZm  and  elq 
liezavoiav  into  more  obvious  relationship.  Thus  the  language 
of  Luke,  by  the  ellipsis  of  the  most  essential  feature  of  the 
phrase,  by  the  nude  dative,  and  by  the  change  in  the  order 
of  the  words,  does  at  every  point  sustain  the  interpretation 
which  has  been  given  of  the  passage  in  Matthew\ 

The  order  of  the  words  (using  the  preposition)  iv  zu>  vdari 
^oKzi'^ajv  (eig  iiszavoiav)  is  the  same  in  John  1 :  31  as  in  Luke 
3:16. 

The  New  Version  translator  of  Acts  says,  in  a  note  on 
1:5,"  As  vdazi  stands  to  the  immersion  by  John,  so  precisely 

19 


290  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

does  iv  Uvtoimzi  stand  to  the  immersion  of  Christ."  This  is 
true;  and  the  converse  is,  also,  true:  As  h  n'^suimrc  stands  to 
the  baptism  of  Christ,  so,  precisely,  does  udaTi  stand  to  the 
baptism  of  John.  Now,  there  are  few  things,  if  there  be 
anything,  having  more  absolute  proof  of  their  truth,  than 
that  of  the  executive  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  soul  into  repentance,  ei'?  /xeravoj'av,  or  into  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  sh  df£(Tiv  djiapTiMv.  It  must,  then,  be  true, 
that  water  occupies  the  position  of  symbol  agency  in  refer- 
ence to  the  ritual  administration  of  these  same  baptisms. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  painful  absurdity  which  has 
ever  characterized  the  attempts  of  those  friends  of  the  theory 
who  have  sought  to  transform  this  agency  into  an  invest- 
ing element,  as  well  as  by  the  necessity  which  has  been  felt 
by  other  of  its  friends  to  abandon  this  irrational  endeavor 
and  to  expound  it  as  a  penetrating,  pervading,  and  control- 
ling power.  Thus  Professor  Ripley  (Acts  1 :  5)  says,  "To  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  means  to  receive  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  great  abundance — to  be  most  plente- 
ously  endued  with  divine  influence — the  promised  efl'usion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  took  place,  v.  8.  The  supernatural  ability  with 
which  the  Apostles  ivere  to  be  endowed  by  the  Holy  Spirit — It 
was  by  the  Holy  Spirit's  agency  that  the  Apostles  were  to  be 
fully  prepared  for  their  office.  (2:4.)  The  Spirit  was  im- 
parted so  copiously,  that  the  disciples  are  said  to  have  been 
filled  with  it.  ISTew  and  unusual  mental  power  was  possessed 
by  them.  Their  religious  views  became  clearer,  and  their 
religious  fervor  was  greatly  increased."  Professor  Ripley 
eschews  the  ludicrous  absurdity  of  "  a  house  filled  with  the 
sound  of  wind  in  which  the  Apostles  are  immersed,"  He 
also  interprets  "the  immersion  of  Christ,"  of  which  the  New 
Version  translator  speaks,  as  having  no  "immersion"  in  it, 
whether  of  fact  or  of  imagination;  but  resolves  it  into  cft'ect 
produced,  to  wit,  changed  condition  of  the  soul.  In  this 
view  this  distinguished  Baptist  commentator  is  undoubtedly 
correct;  and  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that 
there  was  no  "  immersion,"  of  fact  or  of  imagination,  in 
"the  immersion  of  John:"  but  that  the  pure  water  symbol- 


John's  formula.  291 

ized  the  purifying  nature  of  this  "changed  couditiou  of  the 
soul."  The  preposition  in  e'c  iiezawiav — dq  dfscnv — is  intro- 
duced as  suggestive  of  such  cases  of  physical  baptism  as  ex- 
hibit the  baptized  object  penetrated,  pervaded,  and  assimi- 
lated by  the  qualities  of  the  investing  element ;  and  having 
performed  this  duty  its  functions  are  exhausted. 


JOHN'S  COMMISSION  ILLUSTKATED  BY  HIS  FOEMULA  OF 

BAPTISxM. 

El-:    utravotav. 

It  is  not  certain  that  John  used  any  formula  of  words 
which  he  repeated  in  the  case  of  every  individual  baptism. 
There  is  no  such  express  statement,  nor  is  there  any  abso- 
lute necessity  for  it.  The  ministry  of  John  was  not  like  the 
subsequent  ministry  of  Christianity,  one  which  embraced  a 
broad  field  of  varied  truth  and  duty;  but  was  severely  limited 
to  a  single  particular — the  coming  of  Christ  and  preparation 
for  it  by  true  soul  repentance.  A  ritual  ordinance  based 
on  such  a  ministry  could  have  but  one  character,  and  there- 
fore could  not  need  the  repetition  of  a  word  formula  for  its 
exposition. 

If,  however,  a  formula  was  used,  its  terms  must,  of  neces- 
sity, have  been  such  as  to  be  a  reannouncement  of  the  object 
and  end  of  his  ministry.  Some  have  thought  with  Olshausen 
that  the  formula  of  John  announced  a  baptism  dq  rov  ip^ofievov 
— "  I  baptize  thee  into  the  Coming  One."  If  this  were  so, 
then  it  is  as  certain  that  John  said  nothing  of  a  baptism  into 
water,  by  such  formula,  as  that  true  words  express  true  things. 

It   is   simply  impossible  that  in  ^Eyw  uSan  ^anrC^uj  oimq  e\q  rov 

Ip^ofisvov,  that  /SaTTTjtw  can  occupy  a  double  and  identical  rela- 
tion to  odart  and  £i<;  rov  ip^oiizvov.  Its  Complementary  relation 
must  be  with  the  one  or  the  other  exclusively.  If  the  bap- 
tism be,  as  declared,  "into  the  Coming  One,"  then,  the  verb 
has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  expounding  the  manner 
in  which  oban  is  employed  in  the  rite.     Its   power  is  ex- 


292  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

hausted  by  the  declaration,  that  the  baptized  are  to  be 
brought  under  the  controlling  influence  of  "  the  Coming 
One." 

Beza,  and  others,  have  thought  that  John  baptized,  ritu- 
ally,  £i?  TO  dvo/ia  TOO  xupiou  'Irjffou.  iSTow  it  is  obvious,  that  the 
dilterence  between  the  baptism  of  Olshausen  and  of  Beza 
lies  precisely  in  the  difference  between  eh  t6v  ipyS/xsvov  and 
£t;  TO  Svoria  rod  -/.uptou  ^[rjaou]  odart  has  nothing  in  the  world  to 
do  with  it,  cannot  by  any  possibility  enter  into  it ;  so  far  as 
the  baptisms  depend  on  it  they  do  not  differ,  but  are  iden- 
tical. If  these  baptisms,  therefore,  differ  in  any  wise,  they 
differ  by  reason  of  the  words  indicated  and  in  them  mustw^e 
look  for  the  baptism,  just  as  we  look  to  ek  yala^  d<;  atim^  for 
the  difference  between  a  "baptism  into  milk"  and  a  "bap- 
tism into  BLOOD." 

But  there  is  no  Scriptural  authority  for  saying,  that  John 
"  baptized,  with  water,  into  the  Coming  One,"  or  "  baptized, 
with  water,  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus ; "  the  declara- 
tion is  express,  "I  baptize,  with  water,  into  repentance" 
{sk  iJSTavoia'J).  The  formula  of  baptism  must  declare  the  na- 
ture of  the  baptism,  and  this  is  here  done  in  the  most  explicit 
manner.  Water  is  introduced  merely  as  a  symbol  agency 
w'ith  whose  manner  of  use  the  verb  has  no  concern. 

Baptist  writers,  when  they  forget  themselves  and  speak 
according  to  the  record,  use  the  language  of  Scripture  and 
say,  as  does  Stovel,  "  John  baptized  them  into  repentance, 
without  wdiich  none  can  be  accepted  of  God  in  the  Re- 
deemer." Now,  as  Mr.  Stovel  did  not'  teach,  that  "  im- 
mersing in  water"  made  tlie  soul  "accepted  of  God  in  the 
Redeemer,"  he  could  not  refer  to  ritual  baptism,  and  must 
use  this  language,  "baptized  them  into  repentance,"  ^nst  as 
John  preached  it,  and  just  as  the  phraseology  expresses  it  = 
the  soul  brought  under  the  controlling  influence  of  repent- 
ance ;  such  are,  none  other  are,  "  accepted  of  God  in  tlie 
Redeemer."  Such  a  baptism  became  the  Forerunner  of  the 
Mightier  One;  such  a  baptism  was  a  fit  preparation  for  the 
coming  Lord;  to  preach  and  to  administer  a  dipping  in 
water  was  neither  becoming  to  the  character  of  John,  nor  a 


JOHN'S   FORMULA  293 

preparation  for  the  presence  of  Christ.  If  Stovel  had  said : 
"  John  immersed  them  in  water,  without  which  none  can  be  ac- 
cepted of  God,"  what  an  infinitely  different  sentiment  would 
he  have  uttered  compared  with  the  words  which  he  has  em- 
ployed— "John  baptized  ihem  into  repentance,  without  which 
none  can  be  accepted  of  God."  I  repeat,  then,  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  baptism  must  be  found  in  ek  rm  Ip-^oiievov — elq  rd 
woixa — dq  iJ.sravoiav — and  while  John  said,  ritually,  "  I  baptize 
into  REPENTANCE,  witli  Water,"  as  a  symbol;  he  never  said,  I 
baptize  into  water  {^k  udcupy 

John  may  have  used  the  formula,  "  I  baptize  thee  into 
repentance,"  saying  nothing  about  the  water,  in  words,  but 
leaving  the  use  of  the  water  to  speak  for  itself,  as  showing 
that  a  symbol  baptism,  only,  was  contemplated;  or,  he  may 
have  said,  "I,  ivii/i  water,  baptize  thee  into  repentance;" 
thus,  calling  attention  to  the  water,  as  a  symbol,  that  they 
might  the  more  surely  avoid  the  error  of  supposing,  that 
there  was  any  spiritual  efiicacy  in  the  rite.  But  while  the 
words  of  Scripture  remain  as  they  are,  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  any  sound  interpretation  to  deduce  from  them  a 
dipping  into  water.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  evidence  for  a 
formula  of  baptism  goes,  it  is  in  support,  clearly  and  ex- 
clusively, of  a  baptism  "into  repentance "  and  not  into  water. 

Parallel  usage — xaraTrtvu),  iSuOt^u)^  ■kovti'^oj. 

The  principles  which  enter  into  the  preceding  interpreta- 
tions receive  confirmation  by  their  acceptance  in  parallel 

cases. 

Karanivu)  exhibits  in  many  respects  a  usage  parallel  with 

that  of  fia7ZTc!i(o  {y.aTalia7ZTiX,u)^. 

1.  This  word  expresses  etymologically,  the  act  of  drink- 
ing, swallowing  down  a  liquid. 

2.  It  drops  the  limiting  liquid  element,  and  is  applied  to 
swallowing  solids:  Matt.  23  :  24,  "and  swallow  a  camel;"' 
Josephus,  de  Bello,  V,  10,  1,  "  they  swallowed  pieces  of  gold 
that  they  might  not  be  found  by  the  robbers ; "  VI,  7,  3, 
"swallowed  down  food  fouled  with  blood." 

8.  It  drops  the  distinctive  character  of  the  act  as  well  as 


294  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  fluid  substance :  Is.  28  :  7,  "  The  priest  and  the  prophet 
are  swallowed  up  [xaTs-oOrjaw^)  of  (Siaj  wine ; "  Josephus,  V, 
13  :  6,  "Jerusalem  would  have  been  swallowed  up  by  a  yawn- 
ing gulf."  Swallow  up  expresses  result,  beyond  what  is  done 
by  swallow  down,  which  expresses  o.ct. 

4.  All  form  of  descending  action  is  lost,  and  resultant  cov- 
ered condition  substituted :  Hebrews  11 :  29,  "  The  Egyptians 
were  swallowed  up  xareTzdOrjfrav  =  drowucd."  The  Egyptians 
were  already  within  and  on  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  They 
were  not  "swallowed  down."  The  waters  returnina;  swal- 
lowed  them  up  =  destroyed  them  by  drowning. 

5.  Covered  condition,  as  well  as  form  of  action,  is  lost 
and  destruction  remains:  1  Peter  5:8,"  The  devil  as  a  roar- 
ing lion  seeketh  whom  he  may  devour"  [y.aranirj).  The  lion 
may  or  may  not  swallow  what  he  destroys.  "  A  roaring 
lion"  destroys  more  than  he  swallows.  It  is  to  his  destroy- 
ing and  not  swallowing  character  to  which  reference  is  here 
made.  Destruction  precedes  swallowing  in  the  case  of  a 
roaring  lion.  It  follows  swallowing  in  the  case  of  the  return- 
ing waters  of  the  sea.  The  devil  destroys  many;  he  "swal- 
lows" none.  Wine  swallowed  doion  by  priest  or  prophet, 
swallows  iix)  priest  and  prophet;  wine  baptized  in  the  stomach 
by  drinking,  baptizes  the  drinker  in  drunkenness. 

Secondary  use  of  xaranivu). 

As  destruction  of  the  thing  swallowed  is  the  natural  and 
ordinai-y  result  of  swallowing,  such  expression  therefore  is 
very  naturally  used  of  things  in  which  there  can  be  no  swal- 
lowing, but  whose  destruction  we  wish  to  signify. 

1.  This  is  expressed  fully  and  clearly  by  verbal  figure : 

1  Cor.  15  :  S4,   xareTtoOrj   6   Odvaroq  dq  v'uuq,   "  Death    is   SWal- 

lowed  up  into  victory."  Here,  death  is  not  merely  repre- 
sented as  "  swallowed  up,"  this  would  have  been  sufficient 
to  express,  generally,  its  destruction ;  but  not  the  specific 
character  of  the  destruction.  But  this  is  done  in  the  com- 
pletest  manner  by  the  statement — "  swallowed  up  into  vic- 
tory." This  expresses  not  merely  the  death  of  death,  but 
the  triumphant  circumstances  attendant  upon  that  death. 


John's  formula.  295 

Now,  will  any  one  say,  on  the  ground  of  the  verbal  figure 
eiq  v'lxo^^  that  wzo?  must  represent  a  man's  stomach,  and 
"death"  must  represent  a  drink  of  cold  water  going  down 
into  it?  or  a  lion's  paunch  and  a  torn  sheep  passing  down 
into  it?  This  is  the  rhetoric  of  the  theory.  Is  not  the 
phrase  exhausted,  when  it  guides  us  to  its  physical  origin 
and  we  take  therefrom  the  thought  of  destruction  which 
there  confronts  us? 

2.  Verbal  figure,  grounded  in  the  swallowing,  finds  no 
place  by  statement  or  imagination ;  but  a  power  capable  of 
effecting,  by  other  means  than  swallowing,  a  condition  of 
like  characteristics,  is  brought  into  view. 

As  in  2  Cor.  5 : 4,  -'that  mortality  might  be  swallowed  up 
bi/  life.''  That  which  is  swallowed  up  is  not  necessarily 
swallowed  up  within  that  which  is  causative  of  such  con- 
dition. It  was  sin  which  caused  Jerusalem  to  be  in  danger 
of  being  swallowed  up,  not  within  itself,  but  within  "  a 
yawning  chasm."  One  may  be  swallowed  up  by  intemper- 
ance into  the  profoundest  debasement,  or  by  luxury  into 
utter  effeminacy.  To  be  swallowed  up  bi/  a  thing,  in 
secondary  usage,  is  a  phrase  of  very  different  value  from 
being  swallowed  doivn  by  or  in  a  thing.  To  be  swalloAved 
up  by  ambition,  by  avarice,  by  selfishness,  is  indicative  of 
the  supreme  control  of  such  influences;  they  have  the  mas- 
ter}^  This  ends  the  idea.  There  is  no  imaginary  stomach 
to  be  constructed.  In  2  Cor.  5 : 4,  the  controlling  agency 
is  in  the  genitive  with  or.b ;  but  in  2  Cor.  2 :  7,  it  is  in  the 
dative  without  a  preposition,  "swallowed  up  by  overmuch 
sorrow.''  This  expresses  directly  the  supremacy  of  sorrow. 
There  is  no  formal  figure.  Figure  is  only  present  in  that 
sense  in  which  a  word  is  diverted  from  its  primary,  physi- 
cal application,  and  so  much  of  the  original  thought  as  is 
adapted  to  the  case  is  accepted,  and  the  remainder  rejected. 
It  might  be  converted  into  verbal  figure  and  give  greater 
specialty  to  the  statement  by  saying — "swallowed  up  by 
overmuch  sorrow  into  despondency,  into  lethargy,  into  de- 
spair." Either  of  these  conditions  might  result  from  "  over- 
much sorrow,"  and  by  their  differences  they  show  the  neces- 


296  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

sitj  for  specific  statement  when  it  cannot  be  otherwise  cer- 
tainly learned. 

3.  The  result  consequent  upon  the  swallowing  up  of  an 
object,  literally,  is  not  a  destructive  influence  over  such  ob- 
ject always;  but  on  the  contrary  a  powerful  influence  may 
proceed  from  such  object  by  reason  of  its  new  position. 

This  is  true  with  regard  to  food  swallowed.  It,  thereby, 
exerts  an  influence  over  the  whole  physical  system  which  is 
preservative  of  life.  The  same  in  principle,  although  the 
opposite  as  to  the  character  of  the  influence  exerted,  is  the 
influence  of  wine  or  poisons  swallowed.  On  this  literal 
foundation  we  have  that  usage  which  appears  in  Ar.  Ach., 
484,  "to  drink  or  swallow  down  Euripides;"  where  the  pur- 
pose is  to  express  the  influence  to  be  derived  from  Euripides, 
and  not  that  which  should  be  exerted  over  Euripides.  Of 
precisely  the  same  character  is  the  transaction  in  Julian, 
Egypt,  p.  223,  "I  mersed  Cupid  into  the  wine  and  swallowed 
him."  Cupid  having  first  been  swallowed  up  in  the  wine 
was,  then,  swallowed  down  by  the  drinker  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  the  influence  which  the  God  of  Love  would 
thereby  exert  over  the  drinker,  and  which  is  expressed  by 
his  "  titillating  wings."  So  in  all  cases  of  wine-drinking; 
the  wine  is  swallowed  down  not  for  any  influence  to  be  ex- 
erted upon  the  swallowed-down  wine,  but  for  the  swallow- 
ing-up  influence  of  the  wine  which,  hereby,  finds  develop- 
ment, not  envelopment. 

Influence  may  bo  exerted  controlling]}-  by  the  enveloping 
substance  over  the  enveloped  object,  or,  reversely,  the  en- 
veloped object  may  exert  a  controlling  influence  over  the 
enveloping  substance.  The  Scriptures  afibrd  exemplifica- 
tions of  both  cases.  Dr.  Conant  says,  "  Baitri^to  expresses 
the  being  swallowed  up"  (not  the  being  swallowed  doivn) 
"  wholly  in  a  new  state  or  life."  This  would  be  a  remark- 
able meaning  for  a  dippivg.  But  it  is  the  most  absolute  vin- 
dication of  our  interpretation  which  places  the  object  under 
the  complete  influence  of  "  the  new  state  or  life."  John 
preached  a  "new  state,"  a  "new  life,"  and  symbolly  bap- 
tized into  it,  and  not  into  water. 


JOHN'S   FORMULA.  297 

BuOtZtOy    TZOVTl^CJ. 

All  words  having  a  literal  meaning  of  sucli  a  character  as 
^uOiZw^  TTovTiZw,  l^aTrTtXo),  &c.,  must  carrj  with  them  the  idea  of 
influence,  and  come  in  the  exigencies  of  language  to  express 
influence  directly.  Robinson  (N.  T.  Lex.)  says,  xara-ovriZoi, 
Matt.  18  :  6,  "  is  used  to  indicate  the  highest  degree  of 
misery  and  suffering."  In  II  Mac.  12  :  4,  fduOiZo)  is  used  to 
express,  directly,  drowning,  the  influence  of  throwing  men 
and  women  "  into  the  dee23."     And  in  1  Tim.  6  :  9,  airzvzq 

^uOiZooGi  zuhq  dvOpwTTOuq  e^c  oXtO[)ay  xai  aiKuXtiav ^  we   have  (through 

verbal  figure)  the  nature  of  the  engulfing  influence  of"  many 
foolish  and  hurtful  lusts."  And  just  as  Paul  saj's,  the  in- 
fluence of  such  lusts  issues  £'V  oXtOpov  /.aX  a-mlstav^  so  Josephus 
says,  the  influence  of  wine-drinking  issues  ek  avatadr^aiav  xai 
uTtvov,  and  John  says,  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  issues 

e^?  p.sravoiav  ■kcCi.  a<p£aiv  6.p.apxm\). 

Such  words  express  a  general  controlling  influence  which  re- 
ceives specific  character  from  the  adjunct.  A  general  usage,  be- 
longing to  this  entire  class  of  verbs  as  now  indicated,  gives 
to  the  interpretation  assigned  to  [ianriZio  the  highest  certainty. 
We  ask  nothing  for  this  word  which  does  not  belong  to  every 
other  word  of  its  class  as  shown  by  usage  both  in  and  out 
of  the  Scriptures. 


298  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 


PLACES  OF  JOHN'S  BAPTISM. 


PLACE  WITHOUT  MENTION  OF  WATEE. 

John  was  baptizing  in  the  wilderness. — Mark  1 :  4. 

' Ev  BrjOa'Aa vtzoo  yjv  "^ lu)a'jvr^<;  ^aTzri^tav. 

In  Bethany  beyond  Jordan  where  John  was  baptizing. — John 
1:28. 

Eli:;  Toy  ro-uv,  orzou  rjv  ^Icudwrji;  to  npwrov  [ianri^wv. 

Into  the  place,  where  John  was  first  baj)tizing. — John  10  :  40. 

ARGUMENT    FROM    PLACES    OF    BAPTISM. 

'■'■In  the  Wilderness." 

All  who  urge  the  essential  duty  of  "  walkhig  into  the 
water  and  dipping  the  upper  part  of  the  body"'  give  bold 
relief  to  the  places  where  John  baptized.  These  places  were 
the  wilderness,  two  villages,  and  a  river.  The  Scriptures 
declare  the  place,  the  symbol,  and  the  nature  of  the  bap- 
tism ;  the  friends  of  the  theory  see  nothing  but  a  riccr  and 
a  dvpinng  into  it. 

Thoy  who  call  upon  the  world  to  perform  "a  definite  act" 
under  penalty  of  "violated  fealty  to  God,"  assume  no  ordi- 
nary responsibility;  and  they  who  yield  to  such  demands 
become  partners  in  such  responsibilities.  We  will  obey  the 
commands  of  the  Lord  adoringly;  we  will  reject  the  com- 
mands of  men  absolutely. 


IN   THE   WILDERNESS.  299 

New  Version  Translation. 

Some  of  the  best  critical  editions  of  the  New  Testament 
make  the  text  of  Mark  1 :  4  to  read,  6  ^a-KriZwv  the  Baptist, 
and  not  iSaitri'^ujv  baptizhig ;  we  shall,  however,  now  consider 
the  passage  as  it  stands. 

The  ISTew  Version  translates  thus:  "John  was  immersing 
in  the  desert"  (Quarto);  "came  immersing  in  the  wilderness 
and  preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance  unto  the  remis- 
sion of  sins"  (later  edition). 

We  object  to  the  translation  "  zm-mersing,"  because  the 
original  is  (ianri'^wv  and  not  iix-^aizTi^wv.  If  to  this  it  should 
be  answered,  "  We  have  no  word  merse,  uncompounded  with 
a  preposition  in  the  English  language,  and  must  do  the  best 
we  can;"  then,  What  is  this  but  a  confession  that  the  Eng- 
lish language  does  not,  in  this  direction,  furnish  a  suitable 
translating  word?  It  is  idle  to  say,  that  there  is  no  differ- 
ence of  power  between  (ianzi'^uj  and  lii-iia-ri'^iii^  mergo  and  im- 
mergo.  And  it  is  worse  than  idle  to  say,  that  the  Greek 
usage  of  /5arT£'^w  and  kix-l^anri'^io  is  the  same.  But,  although 
we  have  not  in  English  to  merse  uncompounded,  we  have  to 
merge  both  simple  and  compound,  and  Dr.  Conant  says  this 
uncompounded  Greek  word  means  "  m\-merse,  im-merge." 
Why  not,  then,  take  the  uncompounded  merge?  Why  not 
say,  "John  came  merging  in  the  wilderness?"  Is  it  replied, 
"This  is  not  English;  this  is  nonsense?"  I  respond.  This 
maybe  so;  and  yet  it  does  more  nearly  express  the  truth 
than,  "John  came  im-mersing  in  the  wilderness."  7h  im- 
merse, primary,  means  to  put  an  object  within  some  2)hijsi- 
cal  medium  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time ;  while  to  merge 
has  no  such  English  usage,  but  is  applied  ordinarily  (if  not 
without  exception  by  good  writers)  to  things  which  are  not 
physical,  and  denotes  the  passing  of  an  object  into  new  rela- 
tions, with  which  it  thenceforth  becomes  incorporated  and 
assimilated.  "  Feeble-mindedness  merging  into  idiocy,"  ex- 
presses an  intellectual  condition  passing  into  and  becoming 
assimilated  unto  the  condition  of  idiocy.  It  is  boundlessly 
absurd,  in  view  of  English  usage,  to  speak  of  "  feeble-mind- 


300  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

edness  merging  (!)  into  water ^^  not  merely  because  the  intel- 
lect cannot  pass  into  a  fluid,  but  because  the  intellect  cannot 
become  incorporated  with  and  assimilated  unto  water.  We 
enter  a  peremptory  denial,  in  the  name  of  the  whole  New 
Testament,  against  fiar.riZu)  any  more  than  "merge"  carrying 
its  object  into  loater.  And  we  demand  by  all  the  authority 
of  the  express  Word  of  God,  that  this  word  shall  be  allowed 
to  carry  its  object  into  the  condition  of  repentance  (to  be  made 
subject  to  its  controlling  influence  in  the  remission  of  sins 
through  the  Lamb  of  God),  which  condition  shall  be  ritually 
set  forth  by  pure  symbol  water. 

But  again :  Why  take  a  compound  word  to  express  au 
uncompounded  word  when  there  are  simple  forms,  ylungey 
dij),  which  we  are  told  do  express  in  the  most  perfect  manner 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  ?  Why  not  get  rid  of  the 
preposition  (which  is  not  in  the  Word  of  God)  by  translating, 
according  to  Professor  Arnold,  "John  came  jjlunging  in  the 
wilderness  and  iJveiiQ,h.'n\g  the  2^lunging  of  repentance  unto  the 
remission  of  sins?"  Thus  conforming  to  the  solemn  decla- 
ration of  Professor  Arnold,  of  the  Baptist  Theological  Semi- 
nary, Chicago  (Bapt.  Quar.,  Jan.,  1870,  p.  81),  "In  fact,  the 
verb  /SaTTTt'Co^,  immergo,  has  but  one  meaning.  It  signifies 
literally  and  perpetually  to  plunge."  Or,  why  not  translate, 
^^  dipping  in  the  wilderness  and  preaching  the  dipping  of  re- 
pentance imto  the  remission  of  sins  ?  "  And  so  conform  to 
the  aflirmation  of  Dr.  Carson,  versus  Arnold,  "  Ba-ri^u)  means 
dip  and  nothing  but  dip  through  all  Greek  literature." 
"  Preaching  the  immersion  of  repentance  unto  the  remission 
of  sins"  is  neither  English,  nor  Greek,  nor  Christianity. 

The  translation  "immersing"  is  objectionable  on  another 
ground.  It  does  not  accord  with  the  affirmation  made  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  by  Baptists. 

The  translator  of  Matthew  says,  the  word  means  "  a  defi- 
nite act."  But  there  is  no  one  definite  act  in  "immerse." 
Why,  then,  translate  by  a  word  which  does  not  express  the 
meaning  of  the  translated  word?  The  translator  of  Mark 
and  Luke  says,  "It  has  been  settled,  that  there  is  no  difler- 
ence  as  to  signification  between  fidr.TU)  and  fiar^zi^w.^'     Then, 


IN   THE   WILDERNESS.  301 

why  translate  by  "  immerse  ?"  Everybody  (and  these  trans- 
lators not  less  than  others)  admits,  that  /Sa'Trrw  means  to  dip; 
but  no  one  who  understands  the  English  or  the  Latin  lan- 
guage will  say,  that  io  dip  and  to  immerse  are  equivalent 
words.  Why  then,  I  repeat,  originate ^thi8  incongruity  be- 
tween definition  and  translation  ?  I  have  no  doubt  whatever 
of  the  good  general  Greek  scholarship  of  this  translator,  but 
when  engaging  in  a  New  Version  which  was  to  be,  emphat- 
ically, a  new  and  true  version  of  iSa-riXo)^  he  should  have 
sought  such  a  special  mastery  of  the  use  of  this  particular 
word  as  would  have  saved  him  from  so  patent  an  error  as 
that  in  the  declaration,  "It  has  been  settled,  that  there  is  no 
difference,  as  to  signification,  between  ^oltztu)  and  (iami'^u). 
The  latter  is  merely  a  later  form  of  the  word."  This  state- 
ment is,  truly,  surprising. 

The  translator  of  Acts  says,  ^^  Dip,  bai:>,  and  p)hmge,  indicate 
the  sounds  made  by  variously  applying  any  solid  substance 
to  water.  The  air  echoes  plunge  when  a  person  is  suddenly 
immersed  in  water — it  echoes  dip  and  bap  when  persons  or 
other  solid  substances  are  suddenly  submerged.  Being 
words  of  action,  and  not  of  mode,  they  can  have  but  one  literal 
ayid  proper  meaning.^'  It  is  cause  for  wonder,  that  this  scholar 
after  looking  upon  Dr.  Carson's  crucifixion  of  Professor  Ew- 
iug  on  the  cross  of  ridicule,  driving  in  through  every  avail- 
able point  the  tenpenny  nails  of  sarcasm  and  of  contempt, 
did  not  shrink  from  adopting  the  Professor's  idea,  that  bap 
and  pop  were  expository  of  /SaTrrCw;  but  we  have  neither 
cross  nor  "scalping  knife"  for  the  erring  friends  of  the 
theory.  It  is  painful  enough  for  them  to  see  a  cherished 
theory  perish  through  its  own  falsity.  We  would,  however, 
like  to  ask:  How  it  happens,  that  while  bap,  and  dip,  and 
plunge,  are  the  "echoes"  of  the  Greek  word,  yet  these 
echoes  are  all  rejected,  and  "im-merse,"  which  makes  no 
such  "  echo,"  is  taken  in  their  stead  ?  Carson  flays  alive 
the  luckless  friend  oipop ;  the  Baptist  Quarterly  repudiates 
dip  as  too  contemptible  a  word  to  give  name  to  a  Christian 
ordinance;  and  Booth  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  p>lunge, 
because  "  it  makes  our  views  ridiculous."     And  yet  these 


302  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

words  are  pronounced  by  these  translators  to  be  the  very 
words  which,  above  all  others,  represent  /5«~£':w,  while,  in 
translation,  they  are  all  set  aside  for  anotiicr  word  essentially 
different  in  radical  thought  from  jpop,  dip,  or  2-)luncjc,  as  they 
and  it  are,  all  alike,  heaven-wide  diverse  from  i3aKzi'^io  in 
nature  and  in  langnage  development. 

The  New  Version  translator  of  Ephes.  5  :  26  (note),  trans- 
lates (iar.ziZoiitvoq  "  he  tlictt  dippetli."  We  object  to  this  state- 
ment in  notes,  that  a  word  means  one  thing,  and  "  can  have 
but  one  literal  and  proper  meaning,"  and,  then,  giving  in 
the  text  a  word  to  which  usage  has  assigned  a  very  ditferent 
meaning.  It  is  as  easy  to  unify  midnight  and  noon,  as  it  is 
to  unify  the  usage  of  dip  and  immerse.  And  yet  we  are  en- 
joined, in  God's  dread  name,  to  believe  that  t^a-zi^u)  means, 
indifferently,  "  dip  or  immerse."  So  long  as  we  fear  God 
and  retain  the  use  of  reason  we  shall  decline  the  absurdity. 

The  translation  "  immersing"  is  objectionable,  if  used  in 
the  sense  of  dipping  (a  designed  momentary  putting  into  and 
taking  out  of  the  water),  because  such  is  not  the  Classic  use 
of  the  translated  word.  The  element  of  momentariness  be- 
longs and  gives  character  to  fidTzzcj  to  dip;  but  this  element 
has  utterly  disappeared  from  [id-zio  to  dye.  The  same  is  true 
with  regard  to  !iar.zi%u};  and  while  the  absence  of  momenta- 
riness is  not  all  which  distinguishes  it  from  /?a7rrw,  it  is  its 
most  essential  element,  and  that  without  which  it  would  be 
wholly  incompetent  for  its  developed  usage.  If  on  the  other 
band,  "immersing"  is  not  used  for  "a  designed  momentary 
putting  into  and  taldng  out  of,"  then,  it  is  objectionable  that 
it  should  be  conjoined  with  ivcdcr,  because  to  put  a  human 
beino-  under  water  without  withdrawal  is  to  destroy  life.  In 
either  case  the  translation  is  an  error. 

The  Scriptures  have  neither  changed  the  essential  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  nor  have  they  allied  it  with  water  as  its 
exponential  adjunct.  There  is  not  an  instance  of  the  use 
of  fidrzzcj  (primary)  in  the  Xew  Testament  to  which  the  idea 
of  momentariness  does  not  belong;  and  there  is  not  an  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  fiaTzzO^w  m  the  New  Testament  to  which 
the  idea  of  momentariness  does  belong.     If  this  be  true  the 


IN   THE   WILDERNESS.  303 

theory  falls  into  a  shapeless  ruin.  I  know  that  assertion  is 
not  proof.  "Were  it  otherwise  proof  of  the  theory  would 
long  since  have  out-toppecl  the  stars.  I  accept  all  the  burden 
which  this  assertion  brings;  I  will  give  the  proof. 

Baptism  of  the  Passage. 

The  baptism  which  is  announced  by  Mark  is  not  a  baptism 
in  water,  but  is,  totidcm  verbis,  declared  to  be  a  "  baptism 
through  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins." 

The  possibility  of  such  a  baptism  will  be  questioned  by  no 
one  acquainted  with  the  usage  of  ^auriZo).  And  the  possi- 
bility of  the  language  of  Mark  expressing  such  a  baptism 
will  be  questioned  by  no  one  acquainted  with  the  Greek 
language.  We  claim  that  what  is  possible  is  true  in  fact. 
It  will  be  seen,  at  once,  that  such  a  baptism  has  this  supe- 
riority over  the  baptism  of  the  theory — there  is  no  need  to  take 
any  one  out  of  this  baptism  in  a  twinkling  in  order  to  save  life. 
The  soul  may  remain  under  the  full  controlling  influence  of 
remitted  sins  forever.  The  redeemed  once  introduced  into 
this  condition  will,  in  fact,  so  abide  forever.  Thus  far,  then, 
we  have  the  advantage  of  giving  an  exhaustive  development 
to  the  full  power  of  this  forcible  word,  while  the  theory 
mocks  at  its  hic^h  character  and  substitutes  for  it  a  sham. 

The  difference  between  baptism  eic;  /isravucav,  and  "baptism 
of  repentance  £«'?  d^sacv  dfj.apTiwv,"  is  only  the  difi'erence  be- 
tween a  bud  and  its  blossom,  an  antecedent  and  its  conse- 
quent. Repentance  and  remission  of  sins  are  inseparable. 
There  cannot  be,  under  God's  system  of  grace,  a  baptism 
into  the  one  without  a  baptism  into  the  other.  And  although 
John  was,  emphatically,  the  reprover  of  sin,  and  the  preacher 
of  repentance,  he  was,  also,  commissioned  to  proclaim  "the 
beginning  of  the  gospel"  in  making  announcement  of  the 
remission  of  sins.  "His  name  is  John.  And  thou,  child, 
shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest:  for  thou  shalt 
go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare  his  ways;  to  give 
knowledge  of  salvation  unto  his  people  by  the  remission  of 
their  sins"  (Luke  1 :  76,  77).  It  was  not  his  commission  to 
preach  a  baptism  into  water,  but  a  baptism  into  the  remis- 


304  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

sion  of  sins,  through  a  baptism  into  repentance.  And  this 
he  did  preach,  as  Luke  3:3  expressly  states — "He  came 
into  all  the  country  about  Jordan  preaching  the  bapiism  of 
REPENTANCE  luto  THE  REMISSION  OF  SINS."  The  baptism  men- 
tioned by  Josephus  etq  wmi<TOrj(riw^  was  preceded  and  caused 
by  a  baptism  dz  ij-IOtj'^^  and  the  two  are  conjoined  as  a  baptism 
onb  /liOriq  eit;  avaiaOr^aia^^  \  SO,  the  baptism  "  iuto  remitted  sins," 
and  the  precedent  baptism  "  into  repentance,"  are  thrown 

too'ether  as  fidTznaim  iJ-sravoiae;  di;  acpeatv  dfiaprmv.      The  baptism 

which  John  preached,  and  the  baptism  which  John  admin- 
istered, were  one  and  the  same  baptism.  So  Mark  1 :  4 
says;  so  Luke  3  :  3  says;  so  Paul,  Acts  19  :  4,  says;  and  so 
John  himself.  Matt.  3 :  11,  says.  John  disclaims  all  power 
to  confer  repentance,  or  to  remit  sins.  He  proclaims  his 
nothingness  in  these  respects.  He  declares  his  inability  to 
baptize  in  any  other  way  than  symbolly,  by  water.  He 
points  all  who  wait  upon  his  ministry  to  the  Coming  One  in 
whom,  and  in  whom  only,  they  must  "  Behold !  the  Lamb 

of  God  THAT  TAKETII  AWAY  THE  SINS  OF  THE  AVORLD." 

How  John  ritually  used  this  symbol  water  we  are  not, 
here,  told.  It  will  hardly  be  insisted  upon  in  the  present 
case,  as  it  has  been  done  heretofore,  that  iv  following  liaTzri'^u) 
expounds  the  meaning  of  /?a:rT:'>,  Dr,  Conant  in  translating 
(ia-KTiZoj  h  u8ari  says,  "in"  is  the  only  sense  in  which  this 
preposition  can  be  used  in  connection  with  ^aTzriXu),  The 
implication  in  this  statement  is,  that  whenever  Iv  is  used 
with  this  verb  the  element  for  a  dipping  must  be  indicated, 
and  consequently  uoan  must  be  used  for  a  dipping.  These 
things  are  not  only  assumptions,  but  they  are  erroneous  as- 
sumptions. In  the  present  passage  iv  stands  in  closest  jux- 
taposition with  [iaTzri'^cov^  but  it  docs  not  point  out  the  element 
in  which  the  baptism  takes  place;  it  merely  declares  where 
John  was,  and  where  John  baptized.  He  Avas  ^v  ttj  iprj/jM ; 
and  whether  he  there  ate,  or  drank,  or  slept,  sprinkled, 
poured,  or  dipped,  is  a  matter  of  infinite  indifference  to 
iv  rrj  Ipfjiioi.  It  is  as  little  warranted  to  assume,  that  h  with 
ftaizTi^cu  must  be  translated  "  in."  The  New  Version  trans- 
lates   1    Cor.    12:  13,    iv  ^'^f   n^eu/iarc  ....  ifiaTZTiffOrjfisy   ^'- by   one 


IN   BETHANY.  305 

Spirit  we  were  all  immersed  into  one  body."  The  friends 
of  the  theory  being  judges,  then,  we  may  supply  the  ellipsis 
in  this  passage  from  Matt.  3  :  11,  by  ci'  udar:^  and  translate — 
"  John  came  baptizing,  with  Avater,  in  the  wilderness  and 
preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of 
sins."  Attention  has,  already,  been  called  to  the  impropriety 
of  making  a  ritual  baptism  the  great  theme  of  John's  preach- 
ing, as,  also,  of  connecting  remission  of  sins  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  a  rite,  as  is  done  by  the  translation  "  im- 
mersion of  repentance  unto  remission  of  sins,"  and  nothing 
more  need,  now,  be  added. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  character  of  this  place  of  John's 
baptism,  nor  in  anything  said  in  connection  with  it,  which 
looks  like  a  dipping  into  water ;  but  there  is  express  state- 
ment of  a  baptism  bi/  repentance  into  the  remission  op  sins, 
which,  unless  there  were  two  baptisms,  must  be  the  baptism 
of  the  passage  and  of  the  place.  We  may  add:  If  absolute 
uniformity  of  translation  be  any  authoritative  rule  for  the 
judgment,  then  we  must  judge  it  to  be  an  absolute  certainty, 
that  if  this  language  of  Mark  were  found  in  any  Classic 
author,  every  Baptist  would  translate  the  passage  as  I  have 
translated  it,  and  interpret  it  on  the  principles  by  which  I 
have  interpreted  it.  They  would  translate  ek  by  into,  and 
make  it  point  out  the  ideal  element  of  baptism,  under  whose 
influence  the  baptized  must  come.  But  inasmuch  as  there 
is  a  theory  about  the  mode  of  Bible  baptism,  the  translation 
and  interpretation  of  that  holy  volume  must  proceed  on  a 
new  basis,  and  be  made  conformable  to  human  notions. 

In  Bethamj. 

John  1  :  28.  Taura  kv  B-qOavia  lyivtro  Tzipav  too  ^fupddvou,  o-ou  ^v 
'IwdvvTjq  i3o.--i%ujv — These  things  were  done  in  Bethany,  beyond 
the  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing. 

John  10  :  40.  El<;  tov  tottov,  ottou  ^v  ^ IiodwT)<^  zo  TzpaJrov  ^a-riZov — 
And  went  away  again,  beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  first  baptized. 

The  place  where  John  was  baptizing  is,  here,  very  defl- 

20 


306  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

nitely  expressed.  The  baptizing  was  "in  Bethany"  (or 
Bethabara),  a  small  village  "  beyond  the  Jordan." 

The  friends  of  the  theory  are  not  satistied  with  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  as  it  stands.  They  would  change  it  in 
several  particulars.     For  example  : 

'Ev.  While  Dr.  Carson  admits  that  h  should  be  translated 
in  and  not  at,  yet  he  insists  that  the  baptism  was  not  "?'?i 
Bethany."  lie  claims,  that  the  })reposition  may  take  in  an 
indefinite  space  around  the  village. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  Matthies  and  others  state,  that 
h  is  used  with  the  names  of  places,  sometimes,  when  prox- 
imity only  is  implied. 

Jordan.  But  for  what  purpose  is  it  that  the  natural  boun- 
daries of  the  preposition  are  sought  to  be  enlarged?  Dr. 
Carson  answers,  "  To  take  in  the  Jordan  which  was  a  short 
distance  off."  But  why  take  in  the  Jordan  ?  "  To  get 
enough  water  for  '  the  definite  act,'  the  dipping."  But 
where  does  the  dipping  come  from  ?  "  It  is  in  the  theory, 
and  we  cannot  do  without  it."  Well,  then  let  it  be  under- 
stood, that  the  Jordan  is  to  be  brought  within  the  limits  of 
Bethany  not  by  the  demands  of  Scripture  statement,  but  in 
order  to  accommodate  the  assumptions  and  necessities  of 
the  tlieor}". 

But  the  Scriptures  do  not  merely  state,  that  this  baptiz- 
ing took  place  "in  Bethany;"  they  have  something  to  say 
about  Jordan;  and  what  they  say  is,  that  the  baptizing  was 
"  in  Bethany  beyond  the  Jordan."  Now,  if  the  sacred  writer 
wished  to  sa^',  that  the  rite  was  administered  in  the  Jordan, 
wh}'  has  he  said,  "in  Bethany,  beyond  the  Jordan  ?"  If  we 
make  such  addition  to  the  text,  we  have  this  awkward  con- 
struction— "  baptizing  in  Bethany  bej^ond  the  Jordan,  in  the 
Jordan."  To  the  suggestion  that  it  is  elsewhere  said,  that 
baptizing  took  place  "in  the  Jordan,"  I  answer:  And  so  it 
is  said  elsewhere,  that  baptizing  took  place  "in  the  wilder- 
ness." And  if  it  should  be  rejoined,  "Jordan  implies  a  dip- 
ping," the  answer  is — Assumption. 

Origen  (IV,  280)  says,  "r^D  -apd  rw  ^fopSrhrj  iSa-TiiTuazn:;,  iv 
B-qOa^apa  utzo  too  'liudvvou  yr^ariivdu,  i^era'^o/iixiu.      I   think  that  all 


IN   BETHANY.  307 

these  things  are  presented,  not  untimely,  in  inquiring  con- 
cerning the  baptism  alongside  the  Jordan,  effected  by  Johu 
in  Bethabara." 

Origen  here  exchanges  -ipav  for  -Kapa^  which  is  not  done 
unwitting!}'  but  ol"  design,  for  he  had  just  quoted  the  t^t  as 
it  stands.  This  sliows,  that  Origen's  idea  of  the  relation  of 
this  baptism  to  the  Jordan  was  not  that  of  the  theory,  in  the 
Jordan,  but  '■'■alongside  the  Jordan."  Besides,  it  is  of  the 
first  importance  to  note,  tliat  this  inquiry  into  the  baptism 
effected  by  John  is  no  more  made  to  turn  upon  the  manner 
in  which  John  used  the  water,  than  would  an  inquiry  into 
the  quenching  of  his  thirst  be  made  to  turn  upon  his  lapping 
up  water  out  of  the  Jordan  or  taking  it  up  with  his  hollowed 
hand.  The  power  of  water  to  quench  thirst  does  not  depend 
upon  the  manner  of  drinking.  It  made  no  difl:erence  to 
Gideon's  men,  as  to  the  slaking  of  their  thirst,  whether  they 
"lapped  putting  their  hand  to  their  mouth,  or  bowed  down 
upon  their  knees  to  drink  water;"  and  to  the  Patrists  it 
made  no  difference  how  the  water  was  used  bj'John;  the 
power  to  baptize  which  belonged  (in  their  view)  to  the  water 
had  no  dependence  upon  the  manner  of  its  use.  Hence  in 
Patristic  writings  you  do  not  meet  with  the  question  of  the 
mode  of  baptism  as  a  question  on  its  own  merits,  but  merely, 
and  that  rarely,  as  to  the  power  of  a  given  mode  to  elFect 
a  certain  character  of  baptism;  and  the  decision  was,  that 
the  character  of  the  baptism  is  not  affected  by  the  manner 
of  using  the  water,  any  more  than  the  quenching  of  thirst 
is  affected  by  the  quafhng  of  water  from  a  goblet  or  suck- 
ing it  through  a  straw.  The  Patristic  writers  knoAv  noth- 
ing whatever  of  a  Christian  baptism  whose  essence  centred 
in  a  covering  of  the  body  in  water.  Their  baptism  was  ef- 
fected by  water  as  an  agency  through  a  special  power  com- 
municated to  it;  the  development  of  which  power  did  not 
depend  upon  a  dipping  into  it,  any  more  than  the  power  of 
water  to  make  hot  iron  cold  depends  upon  the  iron  being 
dipped  into  it. 

The  sacred  writers  do  not  raise  the  question  of  the  manner 
of  using  the  water,  for  the  same  general  but  not  for  the  same 


308  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

specific  reason  which  influenced  the  early  Christian  writers, 
namely,  because  there  was,  in  their  view,  no  room  for  any 
such  question.  The  latter  regarded  the  water  as  receiving 
a  power  to  take  away  sin  and  to  regenerate  the  soul,  which  did 
not  depend  on  manner  of  use,  and  this  new  condition  of  the 
soul  was  in  their  view  Christian  baptism;  the  former  re- 
garded water  as  having  the  poioer  of  a  symbol  to  show  forth 
the  condition  of  the  soul  penitent,  pardoned,  and  made  re- 
generate by  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  power  being  wholly 
independent  of  manner  of  use,  and  pertaining  to  its  nature, 
the  mode  of  using  the  water  is  left,  as  of  will  and  not  as  of 
commandment,  to  be  gathered  from  terms  used  to  express 
the  shedding  forth,  and  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus. 

The  idea  of  a  baptism  produced,  brought  into  existence 
by  some  power,  is  shown  by  the  word  [ytvoiiivoo)  used  by 
Origen,  a  term  which  he  would  never  have  used  had  he  re- 
garded the  baptism  as  consisting  of  a  physical  dipping  into 
water. 

To  all  these  considerations  as  bearing  upon  p)lace,  may 
be  added  the  historical  fact  stated  in  John  10:40,  "Jesus 
went  away  again  inia  the  jjlace  iphere  John,  at  first,  baptized." 
!N"ow,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  Jesus  did  not  go  into  the 
river:  1.  From  the  dictates  of  common  sense;  2.  From  the 
express  declaration  that  the  place  into  which  he  went  was 
"  beyond  the  river,'"'  and,  yet,  we  are  most  explicitly  told, 
that  "he  went  into  the  p)lace  ivhere  John  baptized."  Here 
again  the  theory,  not  satisfied  with  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture as  it  stands,  must  enter  a  plea  for  a  liberal  interpreta- 
tion of  this  new  preposition  (ei"?)  or  abandon  iv  'lopddvr)  as  full 
of  water  into  winch  John  baptized. 

1.  If  we  take  the  simple  language  of  Scripture  in  narrating 
the  fact  of  this  baptizing,  then  John  baptized  "in  Bethany," 
and  not  in  the  Jordan.  2.  If  we  take  the  historical  account 
of  Jesus  coming  "into  the  place"  where  John  baptized,  then 
John  baptized  "  in  Bethany,"  and  not  in  the  Jordan.  3.  If 
we  supply  the  ellipsis  as  placed  in  our  liands  by  other  Scrip- 
ture (^v  udari  e^c  fisTavoicw),  then  Johu  baptized  in  Bethany' 


IN  ^NON.  309 

"  with  water,  into  repentance,"  and  not  into  tlie  Jordan,  We 

are  satisfied  with  the  words  of  inspiration  as  they  stand.  Can 
the  theory  say  so  ? 


PLACE  OF  BAPTISM  AND  MANY  SPEINGS. 

John  3  :  22,  23. 
J/sra  rauza  rj}.Osv  6  'frjffou<:  ....  £«V  ttjv  'loudatav  yrjV  ....  xai  ijSdizrc^sv. 
"After  these  things  came  Jesus  ....  into  the  laud  of  Judea 
....  and  baptized." 

''Ht]  8e  xai  'Icudvvrjq  [iamiZiDv  ev  Alvwv  lyyuq  rod  laXei'i^  ore  odara  izoXXd 
^v  ixer,  xai  itapeyivovro  xai  ij3a:zTiZovTo. 

"And  John,  also,  was  baptizing  in  Mnon  near  to  Salim,  for 
there  were  many  springs  there,  and  they  came  and  were 
baptized." 

MANY   SPRINGS. 

Translation  and  Punctuation. 

A  jnst  translation  is  essential  to  a  true  interpretation  of 
any  passage.  To  make  a  proper  translation  it  is  necessary 
that  there  should  be  a  proper  adjustment  of  the  relations  of 
words  and  sentences  by  punctuation  and  otherwise. 

The  arrangement  of  the  text  and  its  punctuation  as  given 
by  Tyndale  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  our  common 
English  Bible. 

The  common  version  disjoins  vv.  22  and  23  by  marking 
them  as  distinct  paragraphs.  The  close  of  v.  22  is  marked 
by  a  period.  The  last  line  of  v.  23  is  separated  from  the  pre- 
ceding part  by  a  colon :  all  this  is  wrong.  Tyndale,  Camp- 
bell, Townshend,  and  others,  throw  these  two  verses  into 
one  paragraph  as  containing  closely  related  facts.  Tyndale, 
also,  includes  in  the  paragraph,  very  properly,  v.  23.  But 
he  makes  vv.  22,  23  to  constitute  a  single  sentence  with,  I 
think,  no  less  propriety.  The  whole  passage,  as  rendered 
by  him,  reads  thus  : 

"After  that  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  Jews' 
land,  and  there  abode  with  them  and  baptized,  and  John 


310  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

also  baptized  in  Enoii  beside  Salim,  because  there  was  much 
water  tliere,  and  they  came,  and  were  baptized.  For  John 
was  not  yet  cast  into  prison." 

This  arrangement  and  punctuation  is  a  very  groat  im- 
provement. It  brings  Jesus  and  John  with  their  baptizings 
into  the  closest  local  relation,  and  by  the  comma  preceding 
and  succeeding  "  because  there  was  much  water  there,"  gives 
to  those  words  a  proper  parenthetic  character  which  (with 
the  better  translation  "for  there  were  many  springs  there") 
throws  an  explanatory  light  over  the  entire  preceding  state- 
ment. 

Olshausen  (Comm.  in  loc.)  recognizes  the  proximity  of 
Jesus  and  John.  He  says,  "Jesus  left  the  city  and  baptized, 
remaining,  however,  in  the  country  of  the  Jews.  John,  also, 
was  baptizing  in  the  neighborhood,  and  the  proximity  of  the 
two  messengers  of  God  occasioned  the  following  dispute." 
This  last  statement  lacks  evidence  for  its  support.  Tischen- 
dorf  sustains  (both  in  the  Cod.  Sin.  and  in  his  Critical  Edi- 
tion of  the  New  Testament)  the  punctuation  which  makes, 
oTt  u3aTa  TzaXXa  rjv  hsT,  parenthetical.  And  Bongel  (1 :  24)  saj'S, 
"  John  is  wont  to  use  parentheses,  as  to  causes,  as  to  place, 
by  means  of  which  the  subject  may  the  more  clearly  be  un- 
derstood." 

New  Vej'sion. 

The  jSTew  Version  adopts  the  arrangement  of  Tyndale  so 
fiir  as  the  throwing  of  vv.  22,  23,  and  24  into  one  paragraph 
is  concerned;  but  in  punctuation  it  follows  tlic  Common 
Version,  It  translates,  as  usual,  "  immersing  in  ^Enon," 
and  in  the  quarto  edition,  "  many  waters,"  in  the  sense  "a 
great  abundance  of  loaier"  but  in  the  later  mid  revised  edition, 
"  much  water."  This  latter  translation  stands  alone  when 
compared  with  that  made  of  all  other  passages  (Rev.  1  :  15; 
14  :  2;  17  :  1)  in  the  Now  Testament  whore  the  expression 
mi'/la  uoara  is  fouud.  In  tliosc  passages  the  ISTew  Version 
always  translates  "many  waters." 

Of  the  translation,  "  immersing  in  ^Enon,"  nothing  need 
be  said  so  far  as  "immersing"  is  concerned,  except  to  call 


MANY   SPRINGS.  311 

attention  to  the  fact,  that  Iiere,  again,  the  adjunct  word  says 
nothing  of  a  dipping.  The  phice  of  baptism  is  designated 
by  precisely  the  same  phraseology  as  in  every  other  case, 
heretofore,  considered.  As  John  baptized  "  in  the  wilder- 
ness" and  "  in  Bethany,'"  so,  also,  he  baptized  "  in  JEiion." 
The  juxtaposition  of  /5a7rr:tw  iv  is  guarded  against  misinter- 
pretation, in  the  most  careful  manner,  by  the  sacred  writers. 
The  theory  insists  that  Iv  with  ^ar^ri'^m  must  be  translated  in; 
but  this  position  to  be  worth  anything  to  those  who  make  it 
must  assume  a  dipping  in  the  adjunct;  but  how  is  there  to 
be  a  dipping  in  the  waste  lands  of  a  wilderness,  or  in  the 
houses  and  streets  of  villages?  In  all  such  cases  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  is  effectually  guarded  against  misinter- 
pretation. The  guard  against  error  is  no  less  real  (though 
it  seems  to  have  proved  less  effectual),  where  water  is  the 
near  neighbor  of  this  word  {paTiTiZuj  iv  StJar:),  by  the  intro- 
duction oi'  ei:;  /isTuvdcav ;  for  grammatical  law  and  the  facts  of 
usage  do  as  absolutelj-  preclude  the  appropriation  of  iSaTtriZu) 
by  Iv  udari  in  tho  presence  of  e^V /jerawuav,  as  the  laws  of  grav- 
itation preclude  the  inferior  though  nearer  moon  from 
making  the  earth  its  satellite  against  the  higher  claims  of  the 
more  distant  sun.  The  verb  is  related  to  botli  plirases,  but 
the  relation  is  greatly  diverse;  the  relation  being  toward  ec<; 
/lETavotav  as  its  verbal  element,  and  toward  iv  ooazi  as  its 
symbol  agencw.  Thus,  there  is  no  case  of  the  use  of  ^aTzzi^^m 
tv  which  is  left  in  doubt. 

lloXXa  udara. 

But  some  zealous  friend  of  the  theory  may  say,  "As  to 
this  matter  of  water,  we  have  it  all  here,  and  plenty  of  it 
{jioXka  udaza)^  niiich  loatev,  and  this  must  be  a  case  of  dipping 
or  of  physical  covering,  because  there  is  a  physical  element 
involved."  I  answer:  Is  not  ?o/??e  a  physical  element?  Is 
not  blood  a  physical  element?  Are  not  tears  a  physical 
element?  And  are  not  all  these  used  scores  of  times  in 
baptisms  where  there  is  no  dipping  or  physical  covering? 
"  This  cannot  be  denied;  but  wine,  and  blood,  and  tears,  are 
used  because  having  some  quality,  or  representative  char- 


312  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

acter  apart  from  simple  fluidity,  and  the  dipping  was  not  to 
be  in  the  wine,  or  the  blood,  or  the  tears,  bat  into  something 
else."  Then  it  is  admitted,  that  a  fluid  may  be  present  in  a 
baptism  without  the  baptism  being  in  the  fluid,  provided  it 
has  some  special  quality,  or  representative  character.  What, 
then,  hinders  water  from  being  present  in  a  religious  bap- 
tism without  any  dipping  into  the  water  ?  Has  it  not  had  a 
distinctive  character  as  a  symbol  of  religious  purity  for  a 
period  so  long  that  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the 
contrary?  May  it  not  be  present,  therefore,  in  a  baptism  as 
a  symbol  representative  of  purification,  just  as  wine  is  pres- 
ent as  an  eiFective  agency?  "It  would  seem  that  it  might 
be  so.'"  Then  let  me  ask,  Is  there  any  syntactic  relation  be- 
tween ^anri^o)  and  TtokXa  v8aza  which  requires  the  water  to  be 
used  for  dipping  ?  "  There  is  no  such  syntax ;  but  why  was 
*much  water'  needed  for  sprinklmg?^^  I  have  not  said  that 
it  was  needed  for  sprinkling.  "Or  iov  pouring T'  I  have 
not  said  that  it  was  needed  for  pouring.  "  What,  then,  will 
you  do  with  this  'much  water?'"  Pardon  me  for  question- 
ing whether  the  sacred  writer  speaks  of  much  water,  and  for 
doubting  whether  much  water  would  be  competent  to  meet  the 
end  which  he  has  in  view  in  speaking  oi  r.oXXa  udara.  If  the 
intention  was  to  state,  that  there  was  enough  water  in  which 
to  dip  men  and  women,  the  statement  would  have  a  strange 
sound  for  an  inspired  writer,  and  the  language  chosen  to  ex- 
press the  fact  would  be  no  less  strange.  For  reasons  which 
will  be  given,  and  which  I  hope  will  be  satisfactor}?-,  I  think 
that  the  sacred  writer  does  neither  of  these  strange  things ; 
but  speaks  not  of  a  quantity  of  water,  but  of  a  number  of 
springs.  To  quantity  in  itself  considered,  or  as  a  thing  of 
fact,  I  make  no  objection.  My  objection  is,  that  the  exigency 
of  the  case  does  not  call  for  a  quantity  of  water,  but  does 
call  for  a  number  of  waters,  springs,  fountains,  streams;  and 
whether  they  had  much  water  or  little  water  in  them,  was  a 
point  on  which  the  sacred  writer  had  no  occasion  to  say 
anything  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  does  not  say  ajij'thing. 
This  I  will  endeavor  to  establish  by  adequate  proof  drawn 
from  the  record. 


MANY   SPRINGS.  313 


jEnon. 

That  the  phrase  -ndXXa  udara  is  introduced  for  the  purpose 
of  declaring  the  existence  of  a  number  of  springs  in  close 
proximity  to  each  other,  and  not  to  make  announcement  of 
the  quantity  of  water,  is  very  conclusively  shown  by  the  plu- 
ral form  of  the  name  (^non)  given  to  the  locality.  There 
is  some  diversity  of  opinion  iu  explaining  the  form  of  this 
name,  but  there  is  general  consent  in  regarding  it  as  a  plural 
form  (Ezek.  47: 17)  and  as  meixumg  fountains,  springs.  Evi- 
dence could  scarcely  be  more  complete  to  establish  the  fact 
of  a  plurality  of  water-courses. 

En,  or  Ain,  the  singular  of  ^non,  is  very  frequently  em- 
ployed as  the  name  of  a  town  or  locality  near  to  a  fountain 
or  spring.  As  springs  were  numerous  some  distinctive  term 
was  usually  added  in  order  to  avoid  confusion.  Thus  we 
have: 

En-Misbpat  ....  Fountain  of  Judgment  ....  Genesis  14  :    7. 

En-Shemesh ....  Fountain  of  the  Sun  .....  Joshua  15  :    7. 

En-Eogel Fountain  of  the  Fuller    ...  "       15  :    7. 

Bn-Om Two  Fountains "       15  :  34. 

En-Gannini   ....  Fountain  of  the  Gardens   .  .  "       15  :  34. 

En-Geddi Fountain  of  the  Kid "       15  :  62. 

En-Dor Fountain  of  the  Dwelling  .  .  <'       17  :  11. 

En-Haddah   ....  Fountain  of  Swiftness  ....  "       19  :  21. 

En-Eglaim Fountain  of  Two  Pools  .  .  .  Ezekiel  47  :  10. 

As  it  is  much  less  common  to  meet  with  a  number  of 
springs  in  close  proximity  than  with  a  single  spring,  the 
plural  form  is  much  more  rare  than  the  singular  form  iu 
connection  with  the  names  of  places.  It  is  found,  however, 
in  Ezekiel  47  :  17,  48  : 1,  in  composition  with  Hazar,  a  vil- 
lage— Hazar  ^non  the  Village  of  Fountains.  vEnon,  un- 
compounded,  would  be  much  more  distinctive  than  En,  as 
there  would  be  fewer  places  which  could  be  so  designated; 
yet  more  than  one  place,  it  would  seem,  bore  this  title,  and 
therefore  John  (exemplifying  that  trait  attributed  to  him  by 
Beugel),  parenthetically  adds  to  the  statement  "John,  also, 


314  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

was  baptizing  in  ^Enon"  (I  mean  tliat  ^Enon  wliicli  is  "near 
to  Salim),  for  there  were  many  springs  there."  In  the  like 
spirit  we  iind  the  parenthetic  expLanation  (1 :  28),  I  mean 
that  l>cthany  which  is  "  beyond  Jordan,"  in  order  to  avoid 
confusion  because  of  another  Bethany  near  Jerusalem. 

The  principal  members  of  the  sentence  are  the  first  and 
the  last — "John,  also,  was  baptizing  in  ^^Enon  .  .  .  and  they 
came  and  were  baptized."  The  whole  might  be  paraphrased 
thus  :  "  John,  also,  as  well  as  Jesus,  was  baptizing  in  ^non 
(I  mean  that  ^Enon  near  to  Salim,  so  called,  because  of  its 
many  springs,  which  furnished  separate  baptizing  places  for 
John  and  his  Lord),  and  they  came  and  were  baptized." 
Thus  the  words,  whicli  are  thrown  in  between  the  principal 
clauses,  become  explanatory  of  two  important  particulars, 
1.  Of  the  name  jEuon ;  2.  IIow  John  could  "also"  baptize 
at  ^non  at  the  same  time  with  Jesus. 

Hebrew  Phrase. 

The  usage  of  the  Ilel^rew  plirase,  of  which  TzuUa  iidara  is 
but  a  Greek  form,  shows  that  it  does  not  refer  merely  to  a 
large  l)ody  of  water,  much  less  to  any  particular  form  in 
which  it  is  to  be  used. 

The  Hebrew  (noun  and  adjective  in  the  plural)  is  found  in 
Ezekiel  (19  :  10)  in  speaking  of  a  vine  planted  by  the  waters 
and  made  fruitful  by  reason  of  "  many  waters." 

The  translation  by  the  Septuagint,  vSanx;  ttoUdo^  is  in  the 
singular  number,  showing  that  the  })lural  form  does  not, 
necessarily,  express  quantity-,  or,  that  it  may  be  equally  well 
expressed  by  the  singular.  This  vine  was  not  dii)ped  into 
the  "  many  waters,"  but  was  iilanted  hij  them,  although  the 
Septuagint  lias  iv  uSarc  -£(fureuiiiv^  while  the  Hebrew  preposition 
corresponds  with  l-\;  another  evidence  that  this  phrase  is  not 
to  be  pressed  on  as  of  the  exclusive  sense  in  water.  A  vine 
planted  in  water  would  not  flourish,  but  die.  The  quantity 
of  water  furnished  by  tlie  "many  waters"  of  Ezekiel  was 
80  much  as  was  necessary  for  the  nurture  of  a  vine.  The 
manner  in  which  the  water  was  used  was  by  taking  it  up  by 


MANY   SPRINGS.  315 

means  of  the  rootlets.  John  (for  anything  said  to  the  con- 
trary) may  have  used  the  many  waters  of  ^Enon  in  the  same 
way,  namely,  by  taking  up  and  baptizing  with  it. 

In  Judith  (17  :  17),  rd  vdara  y.ai.  rd?  -r^ydq  twv  vdarwv   denotes  a 

variety  of  sources,  not  quantity.  The  plural  form  is  not 
necessary  to  express  quantity.  In  2  Chron.  32  :  4,  odwp  r.oXh 
is  used  for  this  purpose,  and  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
10  :  18,  i^Sazoq  -oXhiu  is  adequate  to  express  all  the  waters  of 
the  Red  Sea.  ISTaaman,  2  Kings  5  :  12,  uses  the  plural  to  ex- 
press number  and  not  quantity — "Are  not  Abanaand  Phar- 
par  rivers  of  Damascus  better  tlian,  Tavrd  rd  vSara^  all  the 
waters  (rivers)  of  Israel?"  Luther  translates,  "Are  not  the 
waters  Abana  and  Pharpar  better  than  all  waters  in  Israel?" 
making  "waters"  in  both  cases  equivalent  to  rivers. 

Number  and  not  quantity  is,  also,  very  distinctly  stated 
by  the  plural  form  in  Exodus  15  :  27,  "And  they  came  to 
Elini  where  were  twelve  springs  of  waters  and  threescore 
and  ten  palm  trees;  and  they  encamped  there,  -^apd  rd  uSara^ 
by  the  waters."  The  encampment  is  by  '-''many  springs," 
not  by  a  qiiantlty  of  water. 

This  passage  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt  as  to  whether 
quantity  or  number  is  intended.  The  "ret  S^ara"  are  counted, 
and  they  number  just  "  twelve." 

Ambrose  (II,  1432)  understood  the  TtoXld  uSaza  of  JEnon  to 
be  many  springs,  and  not  a  large  aggregation  of  waters ;  he 
says,  "Etsi  baptizabat  Joannes  in  Ennon,  baptizabat  juxta 
Salim,  ubi  erat  aquarum  abundantia.  duodecim  foiites,  et  sep- 
tuaginta  Palmarum  arbores — an  abundance  of  waters,  twelve 
S2Jrivgs."     So,  Ambrose  counts  them. 

In  a  note  on  Tertulliau  (II,  1157),  a  spot  is  described 
which  would  seem  to  answer  very  well  for  ^non — "  Antrum 
Corycium  describens,  ait :  Multi  hinc  illic  e  vivis  fontibus 
fluitant  rivi — Many  streams,  out  of  living  springs,  flow  this 
way  and  that." 

These  references  establish  conclusively  that  the  many 
waters  of  ^-Enon  have  no  necessary  connection  with  "  much 
w^ater"  collected  into  one  body,  or  to  "  many  great  streams, 
the  sound  of  which  resembles  mighty  thunderings,  or  may 


316  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

resemble  tlie  sound  of  a  cataract,  or  the  roaring  of  the  sea, 
but  cannot  resemble  a  tinkling  rill"  (Dr.  Rylancl). 

•The  only  interpretation  which  can  receive  justification  is 
one  which  recognizes  the  presence  of  "many  springs"  ade- 
quate for  the  purposes  of  baptism,  however  administered, 
and  acconunodaiing  two  distinct  'parties  engaged  in  baptizing  at  the 
same  time,  without  interfering  with  each  other. 

It  may  be  added,  that  quantity  (ttoAu?,  TzXr^Oog^  may  be  used 
in  cases  of  baptism,  and  the  quantity  be  no  greater  than 
what  can  be  drunk.  Both  these  terms  are  used  in  wine 
baptisms,  and  a  quart,  or  a  pint,  was  sufficient  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  the  baptism.  Men  could  not  be  dipped 
into  a  quart  pot  of  wine ;  but  they  were  baptized  by  it  with 
all  ease.  The  many  springs  of  ^non  may  have  furnished 
enough  water  for  a  dipping,  but  if  not  they  may  still  have 
furnished  quite  enough  for  a  baptizing.  The  very  mention 
of  number  precludes  the  idea  that  the  mention  of  the  springs 
is  for  the  sake  of  a  dipping.  If  they  were  as  many  as  the 
springs,  or  the  palm  trees,  at  Elim,  there  would  be  no  in- 
creased facility,  thereby,  for  a  dipping.  If  any  one  of  the 
"twelve,"  or  the  "seventy,"  was  sufficient  for  a  dipping, 
the  other  eleven,  or  sixty-nine,  could  be  dispensed  with. 
If  no  one  was  sufficient,  what  benefit  would  accrue  from  a 
multiple  of  nothing  by  nothing?  Carson  says,  that  they 
might  be  all  made  tributary  to  a  common  stock  and  so 
enough  be  secured?  I  answer,  1.  This  method  of  getting 
up  enough  water  for  a  dipping  is  only  another  illustration 
/  of  the  truth  that  the  Scriptures,  as  they  stand,  do  not  answer 
for  the  theory.  2.  The  question  is  not,  "Whether  or  no  there 
was  enough  water  for  the  dipping  of  men  and  women,  but 
whether  a  dipping  into  water  is  declared,  by  the  Word  of 
God,  to  have  taken  place  in  fiict. 

Ambrose,  undoubtedly,  believed  that  twelve  springs  fur- 
nished any  reasonable  quantity  of  water,  and  yet  he  did  not 
feel  that,  however  great  the  quantity,  there  was,  therefore, 
any  need  for  dipping  men  into  them  in  order  to  secure  their 
virtues.  This  is  the  use  which  he  makes  of  these  twelve 
springs :  "  IIos  fontes  habet  Ecclesia,  hoc  est,  in  veteri  Tes- 


MANY   SPRINGS.  317 

tameiito  cliioclecim  patriarchas,  et  in  novo  duodecim  aposto- 
los.  His  fontibus  ante  perfunditur  quiciinque  Christi  mys- 
teri£Q  sacrosancta  conseqnitiir — The  churcli  has  these  foun- 
tains, that  is,  in  the  Old  Testament  the  twelve  Patriarchs, 
and  in  the  ISTew  Testament  the  twelve  Apostles.  Whosoever 
attains  to  the  sacred  mysteries  of  Christ  must  be  first  be- 
sprinklcd  hy  these  fountains."  In  the  same  spirit  Lactantius 
(I,  491)  says :  "  Sic  etiam  gentes  baptismo,  id  est,  pnrifici 
roris  perfusione,  salvaret — So,  also,  he  would  save  the  Gen- 
tiles b}^  baptism,  that  is,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  jntrifying  dew." 
Thus  we  have  this  spring-water  used  according  to  Ambrose 
by  the  verb  (perfundo)  for  sprinkling,  and  baptism  declared 
by  Lactantius  to  be  administered  by  sprinkling  pure  water, 
not  only  by  the  use  of  the  noun  (perfusio)  correspondent 
with  the  verb  (perfundo),  but  as  if  to  exclude  all  possibility 
of  doubt  as  the  mode  of  use,  he  likens  it  to  the  sprinkling 
of  the  dew-drops.  Did  any  one  ever  hear  of  "  dew"  in  the 
shape  of  a  dipping?  except,  indeed,  when  the  theory  per- 
forms the  feat  of  dipping  ]!^ebuchadnezzar  into  it ! 

These  quotations  are  not  oftered  as  proof  that  John  did, 
in  fact,  baptize  in  u^non  by  sprinkling  water  from  its 
springs.  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  adduce  such  proof. 
My  business  is  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  usage  of /JaTrrttw 
in  this  passage  as  demands  a  dipping  of  men  and  women 
into  these  "  many  springs."  The  mention  of  man}/  springs 
might  be  better  adduced  to  show  that  John  dipped  frequent- 
atively,  rather  than  that  he  dipped  at  all.  If  these  "  many 
springs"  were  converted  into  "  much  water"  as  vast  as  the 
ocean,  there  would  not  be  a  hair's  breadth  advance  toward 
a  dipping.  E"ot  only  does  not  this  Greek  word  signify  to 
dip,  but  it  is  not  in  any  such  grammatical  relation  to  this 
water  as  to  make  water  complementary  of  the  meaning  of 
the  verb  be  that  meaning  what  it  may.  To  make  claim  for 
any  such  relation  is  the  most  absolute  assumption.  To  claim 
that  any  such  relation  exists  anywhere  in  the  !N"ew  Testa- 
ment between  this  verb  and  water,  is  the  purest  assumption 
without  evidence.  To  claim  that  /SaTrrttw,  of  itself,  ^oes  any- 
where, in  the  Scriptures  or  out  of  the  Scriptures,  demand 


318  JOIIANNIC    BAPTISM. 

auy  such  relation  to  water  or  any  other  fluiJ,  is  intolerahle 
assumption.  Quantity  of  water  can  show,  that  there  was 
enough  for  a  dipping  or  a  drowning,  if  there  was  auy  dis- 
position to  use  it  for  such  purpose;  but  it  can  never  prove 
auy  such  use,  in  fact.  Alexander  of  ]*licrn3  had  a  sufficient 
quantity  of  wine  in  his  vaults  to  have  s;utiiced  for  the  dipping 
of  himself  or  of  any  number  besides;  and  we  are  told  that 
he  was,  in  fact,  baptized  (-«AAa>  oc^w)  "by  much  wine;"  and, 
yet,  he  was  not  dipped  in  wine  to  tlie  extent  of  the  tip  of 
his  finger. 

Now,  apply  to  this  transaction  the  reasoning  of  the  theory: 
"Wine  is  a  fluid  suitable  for  dipping  into;  we  are  expressly 
told  that  Alexander  was  baptized,  and  therefore  dii)ped,  for 
baptize  means  nothing  but  dip;  there  was  no  lack  of  wine 
for  the  dip[)ing,  as  we  are  distinctly  told  there  was  '  much 
wine,'  and  that  much  wine  was  used  in  the  baptism;  there- 
fore, it  is  '  not  want  of  evidence  but  want  of  honesty  '  which 
denies  that  Alexander  was  dipped  in  wine."  So  logicizes 
tlie  theory. 

The  case,  as  presented,  is,  certainly,  not  open  to  the  ol)jec- 
tion  of  impossibility.  It  is,  unquestionable,  tliat  dipping  into 
"much  wine"  is  just  as  practicable  as  dipping  into  "much 
water."  Nor  is  such  dip})ing  open  to  the  olyection  that  it 
has  never  taken  place.  The  J)nke  of  Clarence  was  more 
than  dipped  in  "much  wine;"  he  was  truly  baptized.  Nor 
can  it  be  objected  that  such  a  baptism  as  that  of  the  Duke 
of  Clarence  would  be  inappropriate  since  he  was  drowned 
bj' his  baptism ;  for  just  such  a  murderous  baptism  meets 
the  case  precisely;  Alexander  was  baptized  for  the  very 
purpose  of  taking  his  life.  Why  now,  may  not,  must  not, 
all  friends  of  the  theory  exclaim,  "Alexander  was  dipped 
into  much  wine,  and  whoever  denies  this,  '  forces  the  con- 
viction upon  ns,  that,  on  this  subject,  it  is  not  light  that  is 
most  wanted  .  .  .  but  religious  honesty'"  (Mem.  of  Carson, 
Bai)t.  Pub.  Soc,  xxxvii). 

On  r>ai»tist  principles  we  are  shut  up  to  the  putting  of 
Alexandl'r  in  this  much  wine  where  he  must  be  drowned, 
according  to  the  legitimate  force  of  the  terms,  as  was  Cla- 


MANY   SPRINGS.  319 

rence,  or  be  saved  by  some  foreign  intervention,  as  Cupid 
was  saved  by  his  godship  when  undergoing  a  like  wine  bap- 
tism, as  related  by  Julian  (C.  B.,  p.  245).  And  in  being 
shut  up  to  such  conclusion  we  are  shut  up  to  the  most  ab- 
solute error.  The  facts  of  the  case  were,  that  Alexander 
was  baptized  by  drinking  (not  by  being  dipped  into)  this 
"  much  wine,"  and  when  thus  thoroughly  baptized,  was 
murdered. 

Now,  what  element  of  proof  for  a  dipping  into  water  can 
be  found  in  this  ^Enon  baptism,  whicli  does  not  nppear  for 
a  di^iping  into  wine  in  this  Plierre  baptism?  Is  Avater,  by 
its  fluid  nature,  suitable  for  dipping  into  ?  So  is  wine.  Was 
there  "much  water"  in  ^non?  So  was  there  "much  wine" 
in  riierse.  Is  baptize  competent  to  dip,  to  cover  over?  It 
was  equal!}''  present  in  both  cases.  Have  men  been  put  into 
water,  of  literal  fact?  So  have  they  been  put  into  wine. 
"What  then,  I  ask,  was  the  discriminating  difference  in  the 
two  cases  which  gives  certain  proof  that  the  ^Enon  disciple 
must  be  baptized  by  dipping,  while  the  Plierte  tyrant  was 
effectually  baptized  by  drinldng? 

Is  it  said  in  reply,  "Wine  drunk  can,  by  figure,  baptize 
into  drunkenness?"  I  answer.  Water  sprinkled  can,  by  ?,ym- 
ho],h-d\)t\ze  into  repodance.  The  question  then  returns.  Why 
must  John  in  his  baptism  be  ironly  bound  to  use  "  much 
water"  by  dipping,  while  Thebe,  in  her  baptism,  has  not  a 
green  withe  to  restrain  her  liberty  in  using  "  much  wine," 
by  drinking? 

While  waiting  for  an  answer  to  this  question  I  will  venture 
the  affirmation,  that  there  is  not  one  word  in  this  account 
of  the  baptism  at  >i:Enon  which  would  prevent  John  using 
the  water  in  precisely  the  same  manner  that  Alexander  used 
the  wine,  namel}',  bj-  drinking;  and  if  he  had  so  used  it 
fiaTTTc^u}  would  have  kept  an  everlasting  silence  as  having  no 
concern  in  the  matter. 

The  theory  must  find  evidence  for  baptizing  by  dipping 
into  water  somewhere  else  than  in  the  account  of  this  bap- 
tism in  ^non. 


320  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Proximo^  of  John  and  Jesus, 

There  is  strong  evidence  in  this  passage  and  the  context  to 
show,  that  John  and  Jesus  were  both  baptizing  in  ^non. 

In  V.  22  we  are  told  that  Jesus  left  Jerusalem  and  went 
into  the  country  region  of  Judea.  The  particular  locality 
reached,  however,  is  not  stated.  But  in  v.  23  we  are  told, 
that  "John  also  was  baptizing  in  -<^non  near  to  Salim." 
Here,  a  particular  locality  is  stated,  but  not  so  as  to  deter- 
mine, definitely,  its  relations  to  "the  land  of  Judea,"  unless 
such  relation  is  indicated  by  "also"  interpreted  as  expres- 
sive of  John's  being  in  the  same  place  and  being  engaged 
in  the  same  duty. 

This  interpretation  is  strengthened  by  the  26  v.,  which 
represents  John's  disciples  as  coming  to  him  and  saying  of 
Jesus,  "Behold,  the  same  baptizeth  and  all  men  come  to 
him."  This  statement  very  clearlj^  implies,  1.  That  these 
disciples  of  John  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  of  which  they  spake.  2.  That  they  had  just  seen  it, 
and  that  it  was  still  going  on.  3.  That  John  himself  might 
have  ocular  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  the  statement,  if 
he  would, — "  Behold !  all  come  to  him." 

After  this  fact,  namely,  "  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John,"  became  more  generally  known, 
we  are  told  (4  : 1),  that  "Jesus  left  Judea  and  departed  again 
into  Galilee."  Kow,  the  relative  number  of  disciples  made 
and  baptized  by  John  and  Jesus  would  be  most  readily 
learned  by  their  close  proximity,  in  which  case  any  striking 
disparity  of  numbers  would  force  itself  upon  the  attention. 
And  since,  on  the  development  of  this  fact  and  as  a  conse- 
quence of  it,  Jesus  leaves  Judea,  the  inference  is,  that  John 
was  in  Judea  and  was  left  there  by  Jesus  to  avoid  such  in- 
vidious comparisons  as  had  been  already  made  by  John's 
disciples,  and  to  preclude  any  course  of  procedure  which  the 
Pharisees  might  be  disposed  to  take  thereupon. 

A  difficulty  which  would  at  once  suggest  itself,  arising  out 
of  the  unavoidable  confusion  of  two  distinct  parties  baptiz- 
ing at  the  same  place,  is  met  in  the  fullest  manner  by  the 


MANY   SPRINGS.  321 

remarkable  parenthetic  statement,  "for  there  were  many 
springs  there."  Our  Baptist  friends  say,  -moXXa  odara  indicates 
a  hirge  body  of  water;  but  there  is  no  such  L^irge  body  of 
water  in  the  whole  land  of  Judea,  not  the  Jordan  itself, 
which  could  claim  the  application  of  these  words  in  that 
large  sense  in  which  they  are,  sometimes,  applied  to  the 
Euphrates  or  to  the  sea;  while  understood  in  relation  to 
number  the  exigency  of  the  case  is  perfectly  met.  Ambrose 
seems  to  think  that  there  is  something  kindred  between  the 
"twelve  springs"  of  Elim  and  these  "many  springs"  of 
^non ;  whether  this  be  so  or  not  it  is  clear,  that  as  all  Israel 
encamped  T^apa  udara^  by  the  springs  of  Elim,  without  inter- 
fering with  each  other,  having  a  spring  for  every  tribe,  so, 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  and  of  John  may  have  encamped  at 
-^non,  T:apa  udara^  without  interfering  with  each  other,  both 
parties  being  accommodated  by  one  of  the  "  many  springs." 

There  was,  however,  one  difficulty  in  the  way  of  an  en- 
tirely satisfactory  conclusion  on  this  subject,  owing  to  the 
uncertainty  of  the  geographical  position  of  ^non. 

The  more  common  view  of  the  locality  did  not  place  it 
within  Judea  at  all;  but  where  it  was,  there  was  confessedly 
no  certain  knowledge.  Unable  to  arrive  at  any  certain  re- 
sult from  the  resources  within  my  immediate  reach,  I  ad- 
dressed a  communication  on  the  subject  to  Rev.  Lyman 
Coleman,  D.D.,  of  La  Fayette  College,  so  well  known  as  an 
accomplished  Biblical  Geographer,  Classical  scholar,  and 
Christian  gentleman.  The  following  communication,  which 
I  take  pleasure  in  submitting,  was  received  in  reply : 

"  Few  localities  have  more  perplexed  geographers  than  ^non. 
Dr.  Eobinson  went  on  his  second  tour  chiefly  to  settle  this  point. 
I  have  many  times  reconsidered  this  question,  and  have  an  un- 
varying conviction  that  Dr.  Barclay  has  brought  to  light  this 
long-lost  locality.  About  four  or  five  miles  northeast  of  Jeru- 
salem, beyond  the  Mount  of  Olives,  two  or  three  below  Anata, 
the  ancient  Anathoth,  birthplace  of  Jeremiah,  he  found  in  the 
desert  a  succession  of  fountains  for  a  mile  or  two  gushing  out 
from  under  high  cliffs,  rzuXXd  udara,  many  pools  deep  enough  for 
wading,  swimming,  and  all  the   immersions   of  the   Baptists. 

21 


322  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Both  (John  andJcsus,  with  their  disciples),  here,  would  be  nigh 
to  each  other,  and  have  ample  space.  Indeed  all  the  conditions 
of  the  narrative  are  fullj^  met  here.  I  was  at  Anata  and  should 
surel}^  have  gone  down  to  these  waters,  but  I  knew  not  of  them. 
I  have  since  conversed  with  Dr.  Barclay  abundantly  on  this 
subject. 

"  The  name  is  either  a  Greek  plural,  as  I  believe,  or  a  sec- 
ondary form,  as  in  Ezekiel  47  :  17. 

"  See  Barclay's  City  of  the  Great  King,  pp.  558-570." 

Dr.  Barclay. 

The  following  extract,  somewhat  condensed,  is  the  passage 
in  Dr.  Barclay's  work  referred  to  by  Dr.  Coleman : 

"  Aij^un  or  Ainyun — Wadah  Farah — Fountains  of  the  Yalley 
of  Delight.  Of  all  the  fountains  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusa- 
lem; the  most  copious  and  interesting  by  far  are  those  which 
burst  forth  Avithin  a  short  distance  of  each  other  in  "Wady  Farah, 
about  six  miles  northeast  of  the  city.  It  is  a  very  interesting 
spot  entirely  unknown  to  Christendom.  We  passed  some  half 
dozen  expansions  of  the  stream,  the  water  varying  in  depth  fi'om 
a  few  inches  to  a  fathom  or  more.  These  pools  ai'e  supplied  by 
some  half  dozen  springs  bursting  from  rocky  crevices  at  various 
intervals.  Verily,  I  thought,  we  have  stumbled  on  ^Enon ! 
'  Many  fountains,'  I  believe,  is  what  Professor  Eobinson,  the 
great  lexicographer,  prefers  rendering  the  -KoXld  vdara  of  ^Enon; 
and  here  are  not  only  'many  fountains,'  but  literally  'much 
water,'  thus  accommodating  each  translation. 

"Although  this  conjecture  (that  Ain  Farah  was  ^non)  must 
be  set  down  to  the  random  conjecture  of  the  moment,  yet  a 
more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  geography  of  the  neigh- 
borhood has  brought  mo  to  the  assured  conviction  that  the  place 
is  none  other  than  the  '  iEnon  near  to  Salim,  where  John  was 
baptizing  because  there  w^as  much  water  there.'  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  supposed  jEuon  to  be  near  a  town  in  Galilee,  called 
Alim,  Slialim,  Salim,  Shulimias,  Salimias.  But,  surely,  never 
was  tradition  so  poorly  sustained;  indeed  it  is  self-refuted. 
Instead  of  being  '  near  to  Salim  and  Jordan,'  it  is,  at  least,  six- 
teen miles  from  Salim,  and  ten  miles  from  the  Jordan. 

"  On  inquiry,  when  within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  the  fountains, 
'What  is  the  name  of  this  Wady  ?'  I  had  the  satisfaction  to  hear 


MANY    SPRINGS.    ,  323 

the  Arab  pronounce  the  identical  word  (Salim),  and  was  con- 
ducted to  the  site  of  an  ancient  city.  Others  pronounced  it 
Sillira,  Selim,  Sulim,  Saleim,  Sallem,  Selam,  &c.  This  valley, 
Wad}"  Selim,  commences  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Mount  Olivet, 
rather  more  than  a  mile  above  the  city,  and  runs  east  three 
miles.  The  position  of  ^non  would  be  well  known  by  the 
Apostles'  reference  to  this  '  city  set  on  a  hill.' " 

Dr.  Barclay,  farther,  says,  that  his  view  of  this  locality  is 
confirmed  by  an  interesting  passage  from  Liglitfoot,  which 
he  quotes,  and  adds : 

"  The  obscurity  has  been  dissipated  by  the  discovery  of  the 
Wady  Salim,  which  affords  the  clue  to  the  identification  of  this 
interesting  locality.  Its  Hebrew  name  is  Ainoon  and  not 
Enon ;  and  this  is,  almost  exactly,  the  Chaldee  Hebrew  for 
fountains. 

"  The  waters,  after  tumbling  eastward  ten  miles,  empty  into 
the  Jordan  under  the  name  Kelt,  an  Arabic  corruption  of  Che- 
rith.  Dr.  Eobinson  (Bib.  Eesearches,  II,  288)  saj's,  both  the 
name  and  locality  may  answer  to  that  of  the  bi'ook  Cherith, 
where  the  prophet  Elijah  hid  himself.  A  more  admirable  place 
of  seclusion  could  nowhere  be  found.  It  dries  up  in  summer,  as 
was  now  the  case." 

The  identification  of  this  locality  seems  to  be  complete. 
Its  position,  "  in  the  laud  of  Judea,"  "  its  many  springs," 
their  "  bursting  from  rocky  crevices  at  various  intervals" 
along  a  distance  of  some  miles,  expounds  the  name  ^non, 
and  squares  perfectly  with  every  conclusion  reached  by  a 
previous  direct  examination  of  the  passage,  and  especially 
accounts  for  the  introduction  of  r.okXd  udara  as  explanatory  of 
"John  also,"  as  well  as  Jesus,  "was  baptizing  in  ^uon." 

While  it  is  true,  that  there  was  much  water  at  -^uon,  that 
is  not  the  truth  which  is  stated  by  the  inspired  writer,  nor 
one  which  would  have  answered  his  purpose  to  state;  it 
would  not  account  for  the  simultaneous  baptizing  of  two 
independent  companies  at  the  same  place ;  the  presence  of 
"  many  springs,"  separated  from  each  other  by  short  dis- 
tances, will  do  this;  and  the  existence  of  such  a  marked 
peculiarity  in  that  locality  is  what  the  Scripture  states.     As 


324  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

to  the  amount  of  water  in  these  springs  the  statement  says 
nothing;  and  the  fact  to  explain  which  it  is  introduced  did 
not  require  that  anything  should  be  said. 

As  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  quantity  of  water  (we  are 
ready  to  admit  the  greatest  amount  which  any  one  could 
desire),  so,  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
water  was  used.  There  is  nothing  in  the  construction  which 
makes  /SaTrrt'^w  and  vdara  expository  of  each  other;  and  as 
there  is  no  necessary  dependence  of  these  words  upon  each 
other,  it  is  a  pure  addition  to  the  Word  of  God  to  assume 
any  such  relation.  We  may  go  farther  and  say :  It  is  not 
merely  an  addition,  but  a  substitution  for  and  an  abroga- 
tion of  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  never 
places  these  words  in  a  complementary  relation  to  each 
other;  but  establishes  other  relations  wholly  diverse  in 
nature.     This  is  done  by  the  declaration   through  John, 

"  BaTZTiZw   Iv  vdart  d'Z  ii£Ta\^6t,av   (Matt.  3  :  11),   ^Sart  jjaTzrt^iu   (e^V 

ixeravoiav)  (Luke  3  :  16),  I,  with  water,  baptize  into  repent- 
ance;" where  iJctTTTjt"' finds  its  complement  in  iJ.£zav6Lav -.  and 
water  (disjoined  from  the  verb  in  such  relation)  expounds, 
as  a  symbol  instrument,  the  purifying  character  of  repent- 
ance baptism. 

If,  then,  we  place  ourselves  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  we  must  say  in  the  words  which  he  teacheth, 
"John  was  baptizing  in  JEiWOw  (with  water  as  a  symbol)  into 
REPENTANCE."  And  Johu  and  Jesus  were  baptizing  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  same  locality,  without  interfering  with 
each  other,  "  because  there  were  many  springs  there." 

Why  Baptizi7}g  at  JEno7i? 

It  only  remains  to  inquire,  Why  John  was  baptizing  at 
^non  ratlicr  than  at  the  Jordan  ? 

The  Scriptures  do  not  give  any  direct  answer  to  this 
question ;  but  we  can  find  one  which  is  highly  probable,  if 
not  certain,  by  a  reference  to  facts  which  are  stated. 

The  first  fact  which  claims  attention  is  the  time  of  the 
year.  It  was  the  spring,  in  or  immediately  after  March. 
The  Passover,  celebrated  in  the  first  of  the  ecclesiastical 


MANY   SPRINGS.  325 

year,  was  just  passed.  Jesus  had  gone  up  to  Jerusalem  (John 
2  :  13,  23)  in  order  to  its  observance.  After  its  termination 
he  left  Jerusalem  (3:22)  "and  came  into  the  country  re- 
gion of  Judeea."  ISTow,  it  was  in  this  month  of  March  that 
the  Jordan  overflowed  its  banks,  and  John,  as  well  as  the 
lion  from  his  fastnesses,  would  be  driven  into  the  country 
region  of  Judaea  by  "  the  swellings  of  Jordan."  "  The  Jor- 
dan may  be  said  to  have  two  banks,  of  w^hich  the  inner 
marks  the  ordinary  height  of  the  stream,  and  the  outer  its 
elevation  during  the  rainy  season,  or  the  melting  of  the 
snows  on  the  summits  of  Lebanon.  This  happens  in  the 
first  month'  of  the  Jewish  year,  which  corresponds  with 
March  (1  Chron.  12  :  15).  Maundrell,  after  descending  the 
outer  bank,  went  about  a  furlong  upon  the  level  strand, 
before  he  came  to  the  immediate  bank  of  the  river.     This 

inner  bank  is  thickly  covered  with  bushes  and  trees 

In  this  entangled  thicket,  so  conveniently  planted  near  the 
cooling  stream,  and  remote  from  the  habitations  of  men, 
several  kinds  of  wild  beasts  were  accustomed  to  repose,  till 
the  swelling  of  the  river  drove  them  from  their  retreat." 
[Encij.  Eel.  Knowl.)  This  condition  of  things  affords  a  highly 
probable  reason  for  John's  leaving  the  Jordan  at  this  time. 

A  second  fact  is  connected  with  Jewish  views  of  purifica- 
tion and  the  fitness  of  things. 

The  Jews  regarded  running  or  living  water  as  especially 
adapted  for  religious  purifications.  All  running  water,  how- 
ever, was  not  equally  pure.  The  Jordan  itself  was  not  re- 
garded as  technically  pure.  The  Talmudists  say,  that  "  the 
waters  of  the  Jordan  are  not  fit  to  sprinkle  the  unclean  be- 
cause they  are  mixed  waters,"  meaning,  mixed  with  the 
waters  of  other  rivers  and  brooks  which  empty  themselves 
into  it. 

But  at  the  time  of  its  overflow  the  waters  of  the  Jordan 
lose  their  purity  not  merely  by  mixture  with  other  waters, 
but  by  sweeping  along  with  its  swollen  flood  all  the  unclean 
things  which  were  the  result  of  a  year's  accumulation  within 
its  widely  extended  outer  banks.  JSTo  thorough  Jew  would 
use  such  water  for  legal  purifications ;  nor  can  we  imagine 


326  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

that  John  (mucli  as  we  may  suppose  him  to  be  free  from  a 
purely  Jewish  feeling)  would  be  likely  to  use  these  turbid 
waters,  without  necessity,  in  a  religious  rite  for  symbol  puri- 
fication. 

We  have,  then,  in  the  overflow  of  the  Jordan  (and  conse- 
quent flooding  of  all  that  space  between  the  outer  and  the 
inner  bank  within  which  John  and  the  people  were,  prob- 
ably, wont  to  congregate),  together  with  the  consequent  real 
as  well  as  technical  impurity  of  its  waters,  an  adequate  rea- 
son for  the  abandonment  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  presence 
of  John  at  one  of  the  pure  springs  of  -<^Enon. 

Thus  the  argument  for  a  dipping  from  the  "much  water" 
of  yEnon  passes  like  a  swollen  torrent,  loud  while  it  lasts, 
but  also  like  it  passes  away,  never  to  return. 


JOED  AN". 

PLACE    OF   BAPTISM,   A    RIVER. 

And  were  baptized  by  him  in  the  Jordan. — Matt.  3  :  6. 

Km  lljaTzri^ovTo  Iv  rS)  'lopddvrj  noTa/iuJ  utz"  duzou. 

And  were  baptized  by  him  in  the  river  Jordan. — Mark  1 :  5. 

The  Jordan. 

While  no  Baptist  was  ever  known  to  base  an  argument 
for  dipping  on  the  Scripture  statement,  that  John  was  bap- 
tizing cv  TTj  lpTi!J.<ji  in  the  wilderness,  Iv  BrjOavia  in  Bethany, 
Iv  Aivojv  in  ./Enon  (admitting  that  such  phraseology  is  expres- 
sive of  nothing  more  than  locality,  and  makes  no  approach 
toward  a  statement  of  a  dipping  within  or  a  covering  over 
bv  the  wilderness,  Bethany,  or  iEnon),  yet  the  same  iden- 
tical form  of  statement,  iv  tw  "/opddyrj^  is  made  the  basis  of 
a  universal  argument  for  dipping  into,  covering  over  with 
water,  although  intelligent  friends  of  the  theory  admit,  that 
iv  rip  'fopddvij  does  as  truly  and  as  absolutely  express  locality 


THE    JORDAN.  327 

as  does  h  t^  ip-rj/j-ip.  It  is  our  business,  now,  to  inquire  into 
the  authority  by  which  "in  the  Jordan,"  a  locality,  is  meta- 
morphosed into  in  the  water,  which  is  no  locality. 

We  very  cheerfully  admit,  that  of  all  the  local  statements, 
"  in  the  wilderness,"  "  in  Bethany,"  "in  ^Eaon,"  "  in  Jor- 
dan," the  last  affords,  by  far,  the  greatest  facility  for  con- 
structing a  popular  argument  in  which  locality  may  be  ig- 
nored, and  ivater  may  be  surreptitiously  substituted. 

General  Argument  of  the  Theory. 

The  general  argument  of  the  theory  is  of  this  sort :  "  To 
go  to  a  river  for  baptism,  when  water  could  be  had  in  smaller 
quantities  elsewhere,  necessitates  the  conclusion  or,  at  least, 
induces  a  violent  presumption,  that  a  large  quantity  of  water 
was  necessary  for  baptism,  and  that  the  mode  of  its  use  was 
by  dipping  men  and  women  into  it." 

The  points  which  are  involved  in  this  statement  are  as 
follows :  1.  The  parties  did  go  to  a  river.  2.  They  did  go  to 
a  river  for  the  purpose  of  baptism.  3.  They  did  leave  a  place 
where  there  was  a  small  quantity  of  water  because  of  the 
small  quantity  of  the  water,  and  did  go  to  a  place  where 
there  was  a  large  quantity  of  water  because  of  the  large 
quantity  of  the  water.  4.  The  quantity  of  water  can  be 
accounted  for  in  no  other  way  than  by  its  use  for  dipping 
men  and  women  into  it. 

Let  us  look  at  these  points  in  their  order  and  try  to  gauge 
their  worth. 

1.  "  The  parties  did  go  to  a  river." 

It  is  customary  for  our  Baptist  friends  (or  was  so  in  old- 
fashioned  times)  to  leave  their  homes  and  their  churches 
(baptizer,  candidates  for  baptism,  and  attendant  throng)  to 
go  forth  to  some  river,  more  or  less  distant,  for  the  sake  of 
baptizing. 

jSTow,  such  a  sight  as  this  is  nowhere  to  be  met  with  in  the 
Bible.  ISTever  is  John  represented  as  heading  a  company 
and  leading  them  from  some  remote  point  to  a  river.  ISTever 
is  John,  or  any  one  else  in  Scripture,  represented  as  leav- 
ing his  usual  place  of  preaching  to  go  to  a  river  to  complete 


328  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

the  functions  of  his  ministiy.  Such  things  belong  exclu- 
sively to  a  Baptist  ministry.  They  have  no  place  in  a  Bible 
ministry. 

But  it  may  be  asked  :  "Do  yon  mean  to  deny  that  John 
was  at  the  river  Jordan  ?  "  Certainly  not.  John  was  at  the 
Jordan;  John  preached  at  the  Jordan;  John  lived  at  the 
Jordan ;  and  where  John  was,  where  John  preached,  where 
John  lived,  there  John  baptized.  What  I  deny  is  this, 
namelj-,  that  John  was  accustomed  or  did  ever  preach  at 
some  remote  point,  and  afterward  lead  away  his  converts  to 
a  river  for  the  accomplishment  of  some  end  which  could  not 
be  accomplished  on  the  spot  whore  he  preached. 

Dr.  Carson  says :  John's  baptizing  at  a  river  can  never  be 
satisfactorily  accounted  for  except  on  the  acknowledgment 
that  baptism  was  by  dipping  men  and  women  into  water. 
In  contradiction  of  this  position  we  aver:  That  John's  pres- 
ence at  the  Jordan,  and  his  consequent  baptism  there,  is 
fully  accounted  for  without  any  reference  to  the  mode  of 
baptism.  In  support  of  this  statement  we  adduce  the  fact, 
that  the  Jordan  and  the  vicinity  of  the  Jordan  was  John's 
home,  and  the  appointed  field  within  wliich  he  should  ex- 
ercise his  ministry.  Luke  (3 :  2)  says:  "The  word  of  God 
came  unto  John  the  son  of  Zacharias  in  the  wilderness.  And 
he  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan  preaching  the 
baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of  sins.  As  it  is 
written  in  the  book  of  the  words  of  Esaias  the  prophet,  say- 
ing. The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye 
the  way  of  the  Lord  .  .  .  and  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation 
of  God." 

We  are  here  taught,  that  John  was  already  in  the  wilder- 
ness (and  may  have  been  there  for  years,  Luke  1 :  80)  when 
"the  word  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,"  calling  him  to,  and 
qualifying  him  for,  his  ministry.  When  and  where  he  was 
called,  then  and  there  he  entered  upon  the  work  of  his  min- 
istry as  foretold  by  Isaiah.  In  his  preaching,  as  here  an- 
nounced, there  was  not  a  particle  of  water;  it  was  not  a  ritual 
baptism  which  he  preached,  but  a  repentance  baptism.  It 
is  by  such  baptism  only,  that  "the  way  of  the  Lord"  is  pre- 


THE   JORDAN.  329 

pared,  "  remission  of  sins"  graciously  secured,  and  "the  sal- 
vation of  God"  made  ours.  The  ministry  of  the  Forerunner 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  ministry  Avhose  great 
business  was  to  make  proclamation,  that  men  and  women 
must  be  dipped  into  water ! 

It  is,  then,  a  matter  settled  as  absolutely  as  Scripture  can 
settle  it,  that  John  was  in  the  wilderness  through  which  the 
Jordan  tlowed,  not  for  the  purpose  of  dipping  into  its  waters, 
but  because  it  was  his  home. 

There  is,  then,  a  great  gulf  separating  John's  position  in 
relation  to  the  river  from  the  Baptist  position.  Baptists 
leave  their  preaching  places  and  seek  out  a  river  in  whose 
waters  they  may  baptize  "  by  walking  in  to  a  convenient 
depth,"  and  dipping  the  upper  part  of  the  body.  There  is 
not  one  word  of  auy  such  doing  in  all  the  history  of  John's 
ministry.  Where  he  preached,  there  he  baptized.  But  it 
may  be  urged:  "Although  John  did  not  go  to  the  Jordan 
from  some  distant  point  of  preaching,  carrying  his  converts 
with  him  in  long  procession,  he  may  have  gone  into  the 
wilderness  in  anticipation  of  his  call  and  of  the  need  of  the 
river."  To  this  suggestion  it  may  be  replied :  (1.)  If  John 
did,  thus,  go  into  the  wilderness  some  years,  more  or  less, 
beforehand,  in  order  that  he  might  be  close  by  a  river,  it 
was  certainly  a  very  remarkable  piece  of  forethought;  and 
none  the  less  remarkable  in  that  he  has  never  since  had  any 
imitator,  inspired  or  uninspired,  in  any  such  prudential 
arrangement.  (2.)  If  John  went  into  the  wilderness  before- 
hand, in  anticipation  of  the  coming  exigency  when  the  river 
would  be  needed  for  dipping,  ivhy  did  his  great  prototype, 
Mias,  go  into  the  same  wilderness  and  make  his  home  by  the  banks 
of  the  same  river?     Did  he,  also,  want  water  for  dipping? 

The  Scriptures  teach  us,  that  Elias  for  a  long  period  to- 
gether made  his  home  by  the  brook  Cherith,  which  empties 
into  the  Jordan  (precisely  the  spot  occupied  by  John);  but 
the  only  use  which  he  made  of  its  waters,  so  far  as  we  are 
informed,  was  for  "  drinking."  It  is  possible,  then,  that  he 
who  "came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias"  frequented 
the  same  wilderness,  and  the   same  river-banks,  without 


830  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

being  governed  by  the  singular  forethought  of  securing 
waters  for  a  dipping.  And  this  possibility  excluding  dip- 
ping "  accounts,  rational!}',  for  the  baptism  of  John  at  a 
river."  (3.)  The  notion  that  John  went  into  the  wilderness 
(like  a  good  general  to  secure  a  favorable  base  for  future 
operations  in  ritual  service)  is,  in  view  of  his  preparation 
work  for  the  kingdom,  as  absurd  as  the  building  of  a  pyra- 
mid with  its  apex  on  the  earth  and  its  base  in  the  air.  Such 
conceit  proves  conclusively  that  the  theory  out  of  which  it 
springs  falls  far  below  the  level  of  John's  preparation  min- 
istry, and  that  in  relation  to  a  developed  Christianity  it  is 
purely  anti-christiau.  I  say  this  with  no  unkindness  toward 
those  who  hold  this  theory,  but  in  all  kindness,  that  they 
may  apprehend  how  absolute  and  how  profound  is  the  error 
which  they  hold. 

(4.)  The  idea  that  John  went  beforehand  to  live  and  preach 
in  the  wilderness,  anticipating  the  necessity  which  otherwise 
would  arise  of  his  coming  with  his  converts  to  the  river  for 
a  dipping,  is  another  of  the  constantly  recurring  evidences 
that  the  Bible,  as  it  stands,  does  not  suit  the  theory. 

It  is  most  manifest,  that  so  far  as  the  "going  to  the  river" 
part  of  this  argument  is  concerned,  it  is  all  in  the  air. 

2.  "  They  went  to  the  river  for  the  jmrpose  of  bctpiisin." 

So  far  as  "they"  is  intended  to  include  John  the  state- 
ment has,  already,  been  disproved.  The  simple  fact  of 
John's  baptizing  at  a  river  (that  river  being  his  home  pre- 
vious to  his  entering  upon  such  ministry)  takes  away  from 
the  river  all  specialty  so  far  as  argument  from  place  is  con- 
cerned. Olshausen  (I,  259)  says:  "The  wilderness  is  spoken 
of  as  the  place  where  he  preached,  which  is  not  to  be  un- 
derstood, of  course,  as  literally  void  of  men,  but  rather  as 
pasture-ground.  But  in  the  fact  that  John  preached  in  the 
wilderness  and  not  in  towns,  we  discover  the  peculiar  char- 
acter of  this  witness  to  the  truth.  It  belongs  to  John's  char- 
acter to  flee  from  men  and  to  preach  to  those  that  seek  him; 
while  the  Eedeemer  himself  seeks  men.  The  wilderness  of 
Judaea  bordered  on  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea."  Ols- 
hausen thinks  that  the  ministry  and  the  place  of  John's 


THE   JORDAN.  331 

ministry  has  some  other  characteristic  than  that  of  dipping 
and  its  conveniences.  John's  wilderness  home,  his  camel's 
hair  apparel,  his  locust  food,  his  repentance  preaching,  all 
told  of  the  severity  of  the  law  and  preparation  for  the  wel- 
come reception  of  "  grace  and  truth  by  Jesus  Christ."  To 
put  aside  all  these  things  and  to  give  us  a  dipping  in  their 
stead  is  a  blank  repudiation  of  the  Scriptures.  We  cannot 
accept  a  stone  for  bread. 

Did  others  "  go  to  the  river  for  baptism"  because  there 
were  no  water  facilities  for  a  baptism  at  the  places  from 
which  they  came  ?  There  is  no  shadow  of  such  an  intima- 
tion in  the  Scriptures.  Some,  we  are  told,  went  out  "  to  see 
John;"  and  some  Avent  to  inquire  of  him,  ""Who  art  thou?" 
and  some  went  to  hear  him  preach;  and  some  "  came  forth 
to  be  baptized  of  him ; "  but  it  is  nowhere  said,  they  came 
out  to  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized  because  it  was  a  river  and 
there  was  not  means  for  baptizing  in  the  places  which  they 
left.  It  was  not  the  river  which  attracted  them,  but  John ; 
and  John  was  at  the  river,  and  baptized  at  the  river,  not 
because  it  was  a  river,  but  because  it  was  his  home,  and 
because  it  furnished  the  nearest  and  most  natural  supply 
of  water.  "Jesus  came  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John, 
to  be  baptized  of  him"  (Matt.  3  :  13).  He  did  not  come  to 
Jordan  because  there  was  no  river,  or  no  water  in  Galilee, 
but  because  there  was  no  John  there.  The  theory  patronizes 
Jordan  at  the  expense  of  John.  The  Bible  magnifies  the 
Baptizer  and  puts  the  place  of  baptism,  "in  the  Jordan,"  in 
a  common  list  with  other  places  of  baptism,  "  in  the  wilder- 
ness," "in  Bethany,"  "in  udEnon,"  declaring  that  in  all  these 
places,  alike,  John  did  baptize  Iv  udan  d<;  ixsra^ulav. 

8.  "  They  left  a  place  where  there  was  a  small  quantity 
of  water,  because  of  the  small  quantity  of  water,  and  went 
to  a  place  where  there  was  a  large  quantity  of  water  because 
of  the  large  quantity  of  water." 

To  sustain  this  position  there  is  no  evidence,  jot  or  tittle, 
in  Scripture.  If  we  should  grant,  what  cannot  be  proved, 
that  John  and  his  converts  left  one  place  for  baptism  in 
another  place,  and  if  we  should  farther  grant,  that  there  was 


ddZ  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

more  water  in  such  latter  place  than  in  the  former,  still,  it 
would  not  follow  bj  any  necessary  consequence,  that  the 
reason  for  leaving  the  one  place  and  going  to  the  other,  was 
to  be  found  in  the  relative  quantities  of  water;  the  reason 
might  be  in  the  character  of  the  water,  standing  or  running, 
impure  or  pure. 

It  is  notorious,  that  both  Gentile  and  Jew  attached  a 
specially  purifying  value  to  runnivg  water.  Thus,  the  Ro- 
man high  priest  addresses  the  Sabine,  "  Quidnam  tu,  hospes, 
paras  ?  Inceste  sacrificium  Dianai  facere  ?  Quin  tu  ante 
vivo  perfunderis  flumine.  Iniima  valle  prssfluit  Tiberis  (Livy, 
I,  45) — What  are  you  about  to  do,  0  Stranger  ?  Would  you 
sacrifice  impurely  to  Diana  ?  Sprinkle  yourself  first  with 
the  Iwing  stream.  The  Tiber  flows  before  you  in  the  bottom 
of  the  valley." 

Philo,  the  Jew  (de  Sacrificantibus),  says:  "It  is  the  custom 
of  nearly  all  others  to  sprinkle  themselves  for  purification 
with  pure  water;  many  with  that  of  the  sea,  some  with  that 
of  ricers,  and  some  with  that  which  in  vessels  they  have 
drawn  up  from  wells." 

The  Old  Testament  requires  the  use  of  running  or  living 
water  for  religious  purification.  "And  he  shall  dip  them  in 
the  running  water  and  sprinkle  the  house  seven  times :  And 
he  shall  cleanse  the  house  with  the  blood  of  the  bird,  and 
with  the  running  water"  (Levit.  14  :  51,  52). 

These  extracts  disprove  the  reasoning  which  says,  "  They 
went  to  the  river  for  a  religious  purification,  and  therefore 
went  for  a  dipping  because  there  was  mack  water  there." 
The  conclusion  is  not  in  the  premise.  The  Gentile  and  the 
Jew  alike  went  to  the  flowing  stream,  not  because  of  the 
quantity  of  the  water  to  be  found  there,  but  because  of  its 
character.  They  sought  for  running,  living,  therefore  pure 
water,  and  having  found  this,  so  much  as  would  suffice  for 
a  sprinkling,  was  a  quantity  sufficient  for  them. 

Thus,  "a  rational  explanation"  is  given  for  the  presence 
of  John  and  the  people  at  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  without 
any  reference  to  the  "  quantity"  of  water  flowing  within  its 
banks. 


THE   JORDAN.  333 

The  reply  made  by  Dr.  Carson  to  this  reasoning,  "We  are 
not  to  suppose  that  John  would  be  influenced  by  such  pecu- 
liarities," is  unsatisfactory :  (1)  because  there  is  no  reason 
why  John,  a  Jew,  exercising  his  ministry  within  Judaism, 
should  not  conform  to  Jewish  usage  in  employing  running 
water  for  religious  rites ;  and  (2)  because,  the  use  of  run- 
nino;  water  was  more  convenient  for  John  and  would  meet 
the  views  of  the  people,  even  supposing  that  John  in  the  use 
of  the  running  water  did  not  design  to  discriminate  as  to  the 
fitness  of  one  kind  of  water  rather  than  another  kind  for 
religious  uses. 

If  now  it  should  be  admitted,  that  the  presence  of  a  river 
does  not  necessitate  either  the  use  of  a  quantity  of  water  or 
of  a  dipping  into  it,  while  it  is  still  urged,  that  this  is  the 
most  probable  conclusion,  we  again  dissent  and  appeal  to 
facts. 

Homer  says :  That  Telemachus  went  to  the  sea  for  a  re- 
ligious purification  by  means  of  its  waters.  Now,  the  theory 
argues,  "The  quantity  of  water  in  the  sea  was  quite  enough 
for  a  dipping,  and  as  the  son  of  Ulysses  took  the  trouble  to 
go  to  the  sea  rather  than  have  a  little  sea-water  brought  to 
him,  it  is  ' probable'  that  he  went  to  the  sea  because  of  the 
quantity  of  its  waters,  and  used  them  by  dipping  his  person 
into  them."  The  only  trouble  in  the  way  of  this  reasoning 
is,  that  we  happen  to  have  a  statement  of  the  manner  of 
using  these  sea-waters,  and  we  find  that  this  Greek,  after 
going  to  the  sea,  was  satisfied  to  use  its  waters  for  loashing 
his  hands. 

Hesiod :  "  Before  prayer  the  hands  should  be  washed  in 
■pure, flowing  water."  Virgil:  "Sprinkling  the  body  with 
river  water."  Ovid:  "The  hands  should  be  washed  with 
living  water."  The  Roman  priest  directs  the  Sabine  to  go 
to  the  river  Tiber  to  sprinkle  himself  with  its  water.  Philo : 
"  It  was  customary  for  the  Jews  to  sprinkle  themselves  with 
river  water."  The  Old  Testament  enjoins,  sprinkling  with 
river  water. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  may  be  asked,  If  it  is  "  probable" 
that  when  river  water  is  used  for  religious  purification,  it  is 


334  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

used  for  dipping  the  body  iuto  it,  then,  how  does  it  happen, 
that  this  probability  is  persistently  violated  from  the  days 
of  Ilesiod  until  the  present  hour?  I  say  "until  the  pres- 
ent hour,"  for  the  custom  of  going  to  running  water  for  re- 
ligious purificatioii  by  using  the  water  in  other  forms  than 
that  of  dipping,  is  an  unquestionable  historical  fact  extend- 
ing b}'  an  unbroken  series  through  more  than  three  thousand 
years. 

Customs  in  the  East  have  a  fixedness  like  to  that  of  the 
everlasting  hills.  The  custom  of  resorting  to  rivers  for  re- 
ligious purification,  because  of  the  greater  purifying  power 
of  running  water,  is  a  custom  of  Eastern  origin,  and  is  con- 
tinued to  tlie  present  day.  The  evidence  for  this  is  found 
in  the  following  statements  of  missionaries  laboring  in  India. 

The  Rev.  R.  S.  Fullerton:  "While  the  Pittar  Pukhs  lasts, 
he  goes  every  morning  to  the  Ganges,  wades  into  it,  and 
while  a  Pundit  reads  the  Sankalap,  takes  up  handfuls  of 
water,  and  pours  them  out  again  into  the  stream,  repeating 
the  names  of  his  father,  grandfather,  and  great-grandfather.'* 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Lbwenthal :  "A  lotd  is  a  brass  urn,  holding 
between  a  pint  and  a  quart,  which  no  Hindoo  can  well  be 
without.  The  Hindoo  bathes  every  day,  that  is  he  pours 
the  water  from  his  lotd  over  his  bod^',  usually  at  some  stream. 
The  secret  meetings  of  the  Sepoys  took  |i]ace,  generally, 
when  they  went  to  bathe,  all  with  their  lot^is  in  their  hands." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Jamieson :  "The  usual  mode  of  bathing  by 
the  Hindoos  is  by  jJouring  water  over  their  persons  from  a 
vessel  called  a  loia,  even  when  they  stand  on  the  brink  of  a 
river.  In  washing  hands  both  Hindoos  and  Mohammedans 
always  pour  water  on  them.  They  say,  that  to  dip  them  into 
the  water  defiles  the  water,  and  the  more  you  wash  the  more 
unclean  they  are." 

AYhat  becomes,  in  view  of  such  facts,  of  the  argument, 
"  Tliey  went  to  the  river,  therefore,  they  were  dipped  into 
its  waters?" 

Baptists  go  to  the  river  for  a  dipping;  and  on  this  practice 
of  theirs  as  a  foundation  (a  foundation  as  unstable  as  water) 
they  build  the  conclusion,  that  John,  living  on  the  banks  of 


THE   JORDAN.  335 

the  river,  could  use  its  waters  iu  no  other  way  than  by 
dipping. 

This  is  tlie  same  illogicism  with  that  which  carries  back 
our  ordinary  mode  of  bathing  through  some  millenaries  of 
years  and  insists  that  the  bath  of  the  olden  time  must  be 
modelled  after  ours.  If  we  had  been  simply  told  that  the 
Sepoy  went  to  the  Ganges  to  bathe,  the  theory  would  have 
insisted  upon  it,  that  no  "  rational  explanation "  could  be 
given  for  his  going  to  the  river  except  that  which  dips  him 
into  its  waters.  And  yet,  whether  it  be  rational  or  irrational, 
he  did  go  to  the  river,  he  did  bathe  there,  and  he  did  not 
dip  into  the  river;  but  he  did  pour  "a  pint  or  a  quart"  of 
water  over  his  body.  If  the  Rev.  C.  S.  Stewart  had  only 
told  us,  that  the  "  bath  of  a  Japanese  noble  lasts  for  an  hour," 
the  theory  would  have  insisted,  most  uncompromisingly,  that 
there  could  be  nothing  else  than  a  dipping  in  such  a  bath. 
Unfortunately,  however,  for  this  theorizing  the  witness  has 
gone  into  particulars  and  his  testimony  is  as  follows :  "  The 
chief  butler  sits  down  before  his  lord  with  a  large  teapot  of 
warm  water.  After  a  decorous  interval  he  fills  his  capacious 
mouth  with  the  liquid,  and  then  purls  it  in  a  spirting  stream 
over  the  tawny  skin  of  his  master.  The  operation  lasts  about 
an  hour,"  This  Eastern  nobleman  only  escapes  a  dipping 
bath  at  the  hands  of  the  theory  in  some  river,  or  its  equiva- 
lent, by  the  recorded  presence  of  a  teapot! 

This  use  of  the  "  lotd,,"  and  the  "  teapot,"  reminds  me 
of  a  very  neat  argument  deduced  from  the  language  of  the 
Forerunner  in  John  3  :  34,  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  {^x 
fxirpou)  out  of  a  measure  unto  him."  The  argument  is  this: 
Ancient  pictures  represent  John  as  baptizing  by  pouring 
water  "  out  of  a  measure"  (a  vessel  resembling  a  shell),  and 
as  suggested  by  this  and  in  contrast  with  it,  he  declares, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
not  "  out  of  a  measure,"  but  immeasurably.  The  argument, 
if  accepted,  would  prove  that  John  used  the  water  in  bap- 
tizing by  pouring  it  out  of  a  vessel  of  limited  capacity. 
Evidence  deduced  from  incidental  allusions  is  often  most 
striking  and  satisfactory  in  its  character.    I  do  not  know  of 


336  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

anything  "whicli  can  prove,  that  John  did  not  make  allusion 
to  the  fact  of  his  using  "  a  measure,"  or  vessel  of  small  ca- 
pacity, in  administering  baptism ;  still,  no  more  than  a  pos- 
sible, though  possibly  a  high,  value  should  be  attached  to 
the  reasoning.  If  the  theory  could  present  as  satisfactory 
evidence  for  a  dipping,  as  is  hereby  given  for  a  pouring,  it 
would  present  a  more  satisfactory  front. 

In  view  of  this  examination,  now  made,  we  are  fully 
justified  in  concluding,  that  there  is  neither  necessity,  nor 
violent  presumption,  nor  probability,  that  John  dipped  men 
and  women  into  water  merely  because  a  river  was  one  of 
the  places  where  he  made  his  home,  where  he  preached, 
and  where  he  baptized. 

In  addition  to  the  facts  already  stated  in  support  of  this 
conclusion  we  may  add  the  following:  "Those  admitted 
into  the  lesser  or  introductory  mysteries  of  Eleusis  were 
previously  purified  on  the  banks  of  the  Ilyssus,  by  water 
poured  upon  them  by  the  Udranos"  (Prof.  Wilson,  p.  242). 
They  went  to  the  river  and  still  there  was  no  immersion. 
"And  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  came  down  to  wash  herself 
at  the  river"  (Exod.  3  :  5).  In  addition  to  the  violent  im- 
probability against  Pharaoh's  daughter  going  into  the  Nile 
to  wash,  we  have  the  fact,  that  the  preposition  of  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  arrests  her  going  at  the  bank  of  the  river, 
while  there  is  nothing  in  the  verb  which  requires  her  to  be 
covered  with  the  water.  We  have,  also,  seen  that  the  mode 
of  female  washing  in  Egj'pt  was  not  by  going  into  a  river, 
or  into  water  at  all,  but  by  the  application  of  water  to  the 
person  (see  Jud.  Bapt.,  p.  121). 

If  there  is  any  deficiency  in  this  "  rational  explanation  " 
of  religious  purification  at  a  river  without  dipping  into  it, 
I  know  not  what  it  is.  We  rely  on  facts ;  the  theory  on 
assertion. 

4.  "  The  quantity  of  water  necessitates  the  idea  of  a  dip- 
ping." Answer:  1.  The  word  "  dip"  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  Kew  Testament  in  connection  with  baptism.  2.  The 
word  baptize  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  in 
complementary  relation  with  water.     3.  Facts  trample  such 


THE   JORDAN.  337 

statement  under  foot.  "  The  hoarj  sea,"  the  Ilyssus,  the 
Tiber,  the  Kile,  the  Ganges,  the  bath  in  the  midst  of  the 
Atlantic  Ocean  out  of  a  teapot^  say  such  reasoning  is  base- 
less. 

Going  down  to  the  River. 

The  friends  of  the  theory  press  hard  upon  the  phraseology 
"going  down  to  the  river"  as  evidence  for  a  dipping.  There 
is,  confessedly,  no  dipping  in  the  language,  but  neither  is 
there  in  anything  else;  so  every  possible,  and  indeed  impos- 
sible thing,  must  be  laid  under  contribution. 

Dr.  Carson,  on  Matt.  3  :  6-13,  p.  126,  urges  this  point 
with  much  earnestness.  He  says :  "  I  perfectly  agree  with 
Mr.  Ewing  that  «7ro  would  have  its  meaning  fully  verified  if 
they  had  only  gone  down  to  the  edge  of  the  water.  How, 
then,  can  I  deduce  dipping  from  the  phrases  going  down  and 
coming  up  from  ?  My  argument  is  this :  If  baptism  had  not 
been  by  immersion,  there  can  be  no  adequate  cause  alleged 
for  going  to  the  river.  Can  sober  judgment,  can  candor 
suppose,  that  if  a  handful  of  water  would  sufiice  for  baptism, 
they  would  have  gone  to  the  river?  Many  evasions  have 
been  alleged  to  get  rid  of  this  argument,  but  it  never  will 
be  fairly  answered.  I  have  strong  suspicions  that  these 
evasions  are  hardly  satisfactory  even  to  those  who  make 
them.  Mr.  Ewing  attempts  to  account  for  this  phraseology 
by  the  fact  that  fountains  and  rivers  are  in  hollow  places. 
This  indeed  accounts  for  the  phraseology,  but  does  it  ac- 
count for  this  fact !  Whether  the  river  was  on  a  hill  or  in 
a  valley,  why  did  they  go  to  it,  when  a  handful  of  water 
would  have  sufficed?" 

This  is  Dr.  Carson's  unanswerable  argument.  "We  can 
only  promise  that  our  answer  to  it  shall  have  the  merit  of 
being  without  "evasion"  and  "satisfactory  to  ourselves." 
Our  appeal  is  to  facts.  Telemachus  did  go  to  the  sea  not 
for  a  dipping,  but  for  a  hand-washing  for  which  "  a  handful 
of  water  would  have  sufficed."  The  Eleusinian  disciples  did 
go  to  the  river  Ilyssus  for  an  onpouring  of  water  for  which 
"  a  handful  would  have  sufficed."    The  Sabine  did  go  down 

22 


338  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

to  the  river  Tiber  for  a  sprinkling  when  "  a  handful  of  water 
would  have  sufficed."  Pharaoh's  daughter  did  go  down  to 
the  river  Nile  to  wash  when,  according  to  Egj'ptian  custom, 
"a  handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed."  The  Hindoo 
during  the  Pittar  Pukhs  did  go  down  to  the  river  Ganges  for 
an  object  for  which  "  handfuls  of  water  did  suffice."  The 
Sepoy  did  go  to  the  river  for  "a pint  or  a  quart"  of  water 
when  "  a  handful,"  in  his  tent  or  on  a  hilltop,  "  would  have 
sufficed."  Greek  and  Latin  writers  say,  that  men  did,  daily, 
go  down  to  the  river  for  hand-washing  and  water  sprinkling, 
when  "  a  handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed."  Philo  and 
Josephus,  Old  Testament  and  Apocrypha,  substantiate  the 
fact,  that  Jews  went  down  to  running  streams  not  to  dip  into 
them,  but  for  purposes  for  which  "a  handful  of  water  would 
suffice." 

What,  now,  in  view  of  facts  like  these,  becomes  of  Dr. 
Carson's  inquiry,  "  Can  sober  judgment,  can  candor  suppose, 
that  if  a  handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed  for  baptism 
that  they  would  have  gone  to  the  river?"  The  answer  may 
not  be  very  satisfactory  to  the  friends  of  the  theory,  but, 
certainly,  there  is  no  "  evasion "  when  Romans,  Greeks, 
Egyptians,  Hindoos,  and  Jews  are  all  shown  in  long  proces- 
sion "  going  down  to  the  river,"  not  for  a  dipping,  but  for  a 
sprinkling,  a  pouring,  and  a  washing,  for  which  "  a  handful 
of  -svater  w^ould  have  sufficed." 

Dr.  Carson  has  said  repeatedly,  that  possibility  is  all  that 
is  necessary  in  order  to  give  validity  to  an  objection.  JSTow, 
we  have  not  only  shown  it  to  be  possible  for  persons  to  go 
down  to  a  river  to  make  use  of  its  water  in  other  w\ays  than 
by  dipping,  but  have  shown  that  to  do  so  was  a  common 
practice  in  various  nations  and  in  various  ages  extending 
through  thrice  ten  hundred  years.  'And  this  three  thousaufl 
year  old  practice  we  throw  across  the  path  of  the  argument 
of  Dr.  Carson,  as  an  objection,  to  bar  forever  access  to  the 
conclusion — "dipping  is  the  necessary  end  of 'going  down 
to  a  river.'  " 


THE  JORDAN.  339 

Justin  Martyr. 

Justin  Martyr  is  quoted  in  support  of  a  dipping  from 
"going  to  the  water."  In  speaking  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism he  says,  "  tntaa  ayovrai  Vip  yjjiwv  hOa  odwp  iffvi — Then  they 

are  led  away  by  us  wliere  there  is  water." 

Our  Baptist  friends  say,  "They  are  led  to  the  water  to  be 
dipped  into  it."  But,  unhappily,  Justin,  like  all  others, 
omitted  the  statement  of  any  such  fact.  The  leading  away 
is  very  plainly  stated,  and  the  presence  of  tvater  is  no  less 
explicitly  stated,  but  the  place  where  should  be  found  the 
"  dipping"  is  an  absolute  blank. 

There  is  a  passage  from  Irenseus  quite  parallel  with  this 
from  Justin  :  "  But  some  of  them  say,  rd  /xkv  aya^v  i-\  to  vdcup 
TTepcffffdv  ehai^  to  lead  away  to  the  water  is  superfluous,  and 
mixing  oil  and  water  together,  they  sprinkle  it  upon  the 
head  of  the  perfected  (baptized.)"  (664.) 

Irenteus  is  speaking  of  certain  heretics.  They  were 
heretical  in  their  baptism  in  that  they  did  not  baptize  into 
the  Trinity ;  but  they  are  not  charged  with  heresy  for  the 
manner  in  which  they  used  the  water  in  ritual  baptism, 

Irenseus  had  just  spoken  of  other  heretics  in  this  language  : 
Ol  8s  ayouaiv  itp"  vdwp^  y.ai  fSaizrt'^O'^Tsq  ouzwr  k-:Tikiyou(7iv  Eiq  ovopa  .... 

"  Others  lead  away  to  water,  and  baptizing,  speak  thus — 
Into  the  name  of  the  unknown  Father  of  all,  into  Truth 
mother  of  all,  into  Ilim  descending  upon  Jesus,  into  Unity, 
and  Redemption,  and  Communion  of  the  powers." 

These  heretics  "  conducted  their  disciples  to  water  and 
baptized  them  saying" — What?  We  dip  you  into  water? 
That,  certainly,  is  what  they  must  have  said,  if  dipping  into 
water  is  baptism:  but  they  said  no  such  thing,  but  instead 
of  a  dipping-into-water-baptism,  they  declare  that  they  bap- 
tize into  the  name  of  the  unknown  Father^  &c.  This  Was  a  most 
heretical  baptism,  and  Irenseus  had  the  good  sense  to  attach 
the  heresy  not  to  the  manner  of  using  the  water,  whatever 
that  may  have  been,  but  precisely  to  that  to  which  it  did 
belong,  namely,  to  the  substitution  of  another  (false  and 
wicked)  verbal  element  for  that  appointed  by  the  Scriptures 


340  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

into  whicli  the  soul  was  to  be  baptized,  made  subject  to  its 
control,  and  assimilated  to  its  likeness. 

But  to  "the  leading  to  water"  some  objected  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  "  superfluous."  On  what  specific  ground 
they  based  this  objection  we  are  not  told;  but  Dr.  Carson 
and  friends  say,  "  It  is  superfluous  to  go  to  the  water  unless 
you  dip  into  it."  If  we  suppose  that  these  heretics  reasoned 
in  the  same  way,  then,  it  would  follow,  that  after  leading  to 
water  there  was  a  failure  to  dip  into  it,  and  hence  arose  the 
complaint,  that  "  going  to  the  water  was  superfluous." 
Whether  the  friends  of  the  theorj'  will  give  up  their  claim, 
that  "  sober  judgment  and  candor"  must  confess  a  dipping 
as  the  issue  of  going  to  the  water,  or  will  allow  that  things 
were  managed  otherwise  in  the  days  of  Ireuseus,  I  do  not 
know. 

In  farther  illustration  of  this  "leading  to  water"  and  con- 
sequent dipping  into  it,  we  may  refer  to  3  Kings  1  :  33, 

xaraydysre  aurov  eiq  ttjv  rtcbv^  V.  38,  xaTii3iq  Zadojy.  o  lepshi;  ....  xai 
dmjyayov  abrov   eiq  zijv   Fiibv    v.  45,  '^o-^i  e^pcffav   aurov   iv  rrj   Fccbv,  xai 

dvijSyjffav — "  lead  him  down  to  the  Gihou  ....  Zadok  the  high 
priest  went  down — and  they  led  him  away  to  the  Gihon — 
and  anointed  him  at  (Jv)  the  Grihon,  and  they  came  up." 

We  have  here  a  case  of  "  leading  to  the  water."  Will  the 
theory  insist  upon  it  that  "sober  judgment  and  candor" 
must  declare  that  Solomon  was  dipped  into  the  Gihon.  Will 
it  insist  upon  his  being  led  into  the  Gihon  by  those  strongest 
possible  words  eiq  ttjv  Ftcbv  ?  Will  it  insist  upon  the  kingly 
anointing  taking  place  loithin  the  waters  of  the  Gihon  by 
reason  of  those  unreserved  words,  iv  r^  Fiwv  ? 

If  Solomon  was  "  led  away  to  where  there  was  water,"  if 
he  was  led  into  the  water  (so  far  as  e;'?  rijv  Fcibv^  hy  any  neces- 
sity, puts  him  into  water),  if  he  was  anointed  within  the 
water  (so  far  as  l-'  rfj  Fcwv  has  any  absolute  force  to  put  him 
within  water),  if  he  went  down  to  the  water  and  came  up 
from  the  water,  when  but  "  a  handful  would  suffice,"  what 
becomes  of  "the  unanswerable  argument"  for  a  dipping 
from  "going  down  to  and  coming  up  from?" 

If  it  should  continue  to  be  said,  that  this  reply,  like  all 


THE  JORDAN.  341 

others  which  have  gone  before,  presents  "  many  evasions  to 
get  rid  of  the  argument  without  making  a  fair  answer,"  I 
can  only  plead,  that  I  have  answered  according  to  the 
measure  of  my  understanding,  and  that  whatever  remains 
unanswered  must  be  set  down  as  too  profound  for  my  ap- 
prehension. 

Responsihility. 

As  the  theory  insists  upon  a  dipping  of  men  and  women 
into  water,  it  does,  thereby,  make  itself  responsible  for  all 
the  consequences  which  unavoidably  attach  to  such  dipping. 

They  refuse  to  be  responsible  for  a  drowning  (while  con- 
fessing that  ^ar.TiZui  does  drown),  on  the  plea  that  God  never 
meant  that  Christians  should  be  drowned;  and  refusing  to 
give  up  the  theory  that  men  and  women  are  to  be  put  into 
water,  they  change  the  word  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  used 
and  for  baptizing  substitute  dipping,  which  term  will  allow 
living  persons  to  be  brought  into  an  unscriptural  relation 
with  water  without  depriving  them  of  life. 

They  like  just  as  little,  to  be  made  responsible  for  a  pro- 
miscuous multitude  disrobing  and  enrobing  on  the  banks 
of  a  river,  or  for  its  alternative,  to  be  dipped  into  the  water 
without  any  change  of  garments  before  or  after  the  dipping. 

Dr.  Carson  (p.  337)  vents  his  indignation  under  the  pres- 
sure of  this  responsibility  after  this  manner :  "  Must  we  go 
back  eighteen  centuries  to  find  a  change  of  raiment  ?  We 
have  nothing  to  do  with  inquiries  of  this  kind.  I  prove 
that  they,  were  immersed.  I  care  not  from  what  sources 
they  had  suitable  conveniences." 

There  is  an  abundance  of  nonchalance  in  this  language, 
but  the  responsibility  is  too  firmly  fixed  to  be  either  denied 
or  evaded.  Dr.  Carson  sets  out  joyously  to  traverse  the 
track  of  eighteen  centuries  to  discover  a  dipping  into  water; 
is  the  journey  any  harder,  or  any  longer,  to  find  out  whether 
the  dipped  were  disrobed  or  enrobed  ?  The  E"ational  Bap- 
tist quotes  a  Jewish  Rabbi  as  saying,  "Jews  were  baptized 
in  a  nude  state,  and  by  a  submersion  of  the  whole  body  in 
water.     And  John  the  Baptist  surely  performed  it  in  the 


342  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

same  way  that  the  Jews  did."  Is  this  the  accepted  solution? 
I  know  of  no  Baptist  authority  which  attempts,  directly,  to 
resolve  the  difficulty.  Dr.  Fuller,  very  thoughtfully,  sees 
that  this  difficulty  is  met  in  the  case  of  Judith.  He  says : 
"  Hud  it  been  in  the  day,  and  in  a  place  where  she  could  be 
seen,  there  would  have  been  no  indelicacy,  for  she  was,  of 
course,  dressed  in  proper  apparel."  This  "  of  course  dressed 
in  proper  apparel"  sounds  very  much  like  exposition  from 
a  Baptist  vestry-room. 

I  presume  no  one  questions  whether  the  multitudes  bap- 
tized by  John  were  baptized  in  the  daytime  or  not;  or 
whether  they  were  baptized  in  a  place  where  the}^  could  be 
seen  or  not ;  were  they,  also,  "  of  course  dressed  in  proper 
apparel?"  If  they  were  dressed  "in  proper  apparel"  (Jew- 
ish Rabbi  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding)  when  they  went 
into  the  water,  what  is  to  be  done  with  this,  now,  improper 
apparel  when  the}^  come  out  of  the  water?  Is  it  to  be  kept 
on?  If  not,  how  is  it  to  be  removed  and  other  apparel  put 
on  there  on  the  banks  of  the  river  ?  The  difficulty  is  real 
and  practical     The  theory  is  vexed  by  it. 

The  Bible  narrative  does  not  meet  the  wants  of  the  tlieory. 
It  leaves  them  in  a  dilemma.  It  may  be  the  best  thing  that 
Dr.  Carson  can  say  under  difficulties,  "  "We  have  nothing  to 
do  with  such  inquiries;"  but  such  utterance  shows  that  the 
last  bullet  has  been  fired  from  his  pouch,  and  he  is  driven  to 
the  necessity  of  tearing  a  button  from  his  coat.  He  knew 
both  the  importance  of  this  point  and  the  impossibility  of 
giving  it  a  satisfactory  solution,  not  by  reason  of  the  eighteen 
centuries  which  have  elapsed,  nor  yet  because  of  the  silence 
of  the  Scriptures,  but  because  of  lohat  the  Scriptures  have  said. 
It  is  not  time,  nor  silence,  which  gives  the  trouble  when 
promiscuous  multitudes,  distance  from  home,  and  wilder- 
ness, are  spoken  of.  It  is  the  statement  of  these  positive  facts 
which  constitute  a  condition  of  things  in  which  while  a 
change  of  raiment  is  necessary  to  a  dipping  into  water,  how 
such  a  change  of  raiment  is  to  be  eftected,  in  such  circum- 
stances, becomes  a  thing  all  inexplicable.  Dr.  Carson,  there- 
fore, with  controversial  skill,  makes  light  of  an  unmanage- 


EXEGETICAL   EXAMINATION.  343 

able  difficulty  and  declares,  "  I  care  not  from  what  sources 
they  had  suitable  conveniences.  I  prove  that  they  were  im- 
mersed." Well,  if  it  is  indeed  proved  that  these  multitudes 
were  dipped  into  water,  I  will  throw  in  the  raiment  and  be 
dumb  with  silence  on  that  point.  But  "proof"  will  be  re- 
quired. ,  We  cannot  accept  assumption,  nor  assertion,  nor 
evasion.  Dipping  into  the  river  evokes  the  raiment  question. 
The  Bible  says  nothing  about  either  dipping  or  raiment. 
Rabbi  Kalisch  says,  John  dipped ;  and  he  disposes  of  the 
raiment  question  by  saying,  he  dipped  the  people  "  naked." 
The  theory  supplements  the  Bible  by  saying,  John  dipped; 
but  pleads  ignorance  about  the  raiment,  and  adds,  "  I  don't 
care ! " 

I  close  this  view  of  the  subject  by  the  general  remark, 
that  "  the  Jordan "  comes  into  view  as  belonging  to  the 
same  class  with  "  the  wilderness,"  "  the  locusts  and  wild 
honey,"  "  the  camel's  hair  raiAient  and  leathern  girdle,"  all 
of  which  pertain  to  John  in  his  peculiar  individuality  and 
Elias  character,  and  have  nothing  more  than  incidental  re- 
lation to  his  baptism.  This  is  conclusively  shown  by  the 
fact,  that  while  baptism  survived  John,  neither  "  wilderness," 
"locusts,"  "wild  honey,"  "camel's  hair,"  "leathern  girdle," 
or  "Jordan"  survived  him.  All  passed  away  together. 
There  was  thenceforth  no  more  known  of  any  one  in  the 
Scriptures  going  out  into  the  wilderness,  or  going  to  the 
Jordan,  or  going  to  any  river,  to  seek  for  baptism. 


EXEGETICAL   EXAMINATION. 

We  proceed  to  a  more  detailed  consideration  of  the 
phraseology  in  which  this  case  of  baptizing  is  stated,  l^o 
passages  are  made  more  frequently  the  subjects  of  popular 
appeal  in  order  to  confound  opponents  and  to  magnify  the 

tiieory. 

Translation. 

'^/Jarri'^ovTo  iv  zui  ^lopddvrj tv  tw  ^/opddvrj  Tzora/iai. 

"  Were  baptized  in  the  Jordan in  the  river  Jordan." 


344  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Couaiit  and  Dr.  Carson  complain  of  the  diverse  trans- 
lations of  the  preposition  ^i^  in  the  phrase  iv  udart  with  water, 
and  in  the  phrase  ^v  ''lopddvrj  in  Jordan.  They  claim  to  know, 
that  the  reason  why  the  translation  of  the  former  phrase  was 
not  used  in  the  latter  phrase  was,  because  the  wrong  would 
have  been  "  too  glaring."  They  also  aver,  that  the  unfaith- 
fulness of  the  translators  of  our  English  Bible  is  rebuked  by 
the  more  faithful  adherence  to  the  original  by  Popish  trans- 
lators. This  condemnation  is  pressed  by  the  quotation  of  a 
passage  from  Dr.  Campbell,  which  these  gentlemen  very 
cordially  indorse.  Dr.  Conant,  in  his  Version  of  Matthew 
for  the  Baptist  Bible  Union,  gives  the  following  quotation 
in  a  note  on  Matt.  3  :  11 — "  Campbell  (Dr.  George  Campbell, 
President  of  Mareschal  College,  Aberdeen)  says,  with  just 
severity,  I  am  sorry  to  obserye  that  the  Popish  translators 
from  the  Vulgate  have  shown  greater  veneration  for  the 
style  of  that  version  than  the  generality  of  Protestant  trans- 
lators have  shown  for  that  of  the  original.  For  in  this  the 
Latin  is  not  more  explicit  than  the  Greek.  Yet  so  incon- 
sistent are  the  interpreters  last  mentioned,  that  none  of  them 
have  scrupled  to  render  iv  zai.  'lopddvrj^  in  the  sixth  verse,  '  in 
Jordan ; '  though  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  if  there 
be  any  incongruity  in  the  expression  '  in  water,'  this  '  in 
Jordan '  must  be  equally  incongruous.  But  they  have  seen 
that  the  preposition  in  could  not  be  avoided  there  without 
adopting  a  circumlocution,  and  saying,  '  with  the  water  of 
Jordan,'  which  would  have  made  their  deviation  from  the 
text  too  glaring." 

The  translators  of  the  English  Bible  were  not  infallible. 
This  will  hardly  be  claimed  for  themselves  by  the  New 
Version  translators,  whatever  may  be  claimed  for  the  Vul- 
gate and  its  Popish  translators.  It  is  seldom,  however,  that 
such  charges  against  the  integrity  of  the  translators  of  the 
English  Bible  are  brought  from  any  quarter,  much  less  from 
such  quarters  as  those  where  we  naturally  look  for  that  noble 
sympathy  which  is  inherent  in  the  highest  learning  and  the 
truest  piety. 


EXEGETICAL   EXAMINATION.  345 

Dr.  Conaut  did  not  give  the  sentence  following  the  quo- 
tation which  he  made.  It  runs  thus :  "  The  true  partisan 
of  whatever  denomination  always  inclines  to  correct  the 
diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the  party."  E"ow,  I  do  not 
say,  that  there  was  a  "just  severity"  in  this  remark,  which 
was  "seen"  by  Dr.  Conant,  and  under  the  consciousness 
that  the  application  was  "too  glaring"  to  the  work  of  the 
Baptist  Bible  Union,  "  in  correcting  the  diction  of  the  Spirit 
by  that  of  the  party"  in  promoting  whose  object  Dr.  Conant 
was  himself  engaged,  and,  therefore  he  omitted  the  passage. 

Such  charge  might  involve  great  wrong.  But  does  Dr. 
Conant  do  less  wrong  to  the  memory  of  the  translators  of 
the  English  Bible  when  he  indorses  such  charges  against 
them.  "Who  was  it  told  Dr.  Campbell  or  Dr.  Conant,  that 
it  was  a  less  veneration  for  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
than  Papists  felt  for  the  words  of  men,  which  made  the  dif- 
ference between  the  one  translation  and  the  other  ?  Who 
certified  either  Doctor,  that  there  is  any  inconsistency  in  the 
renderings  "with  water"  and  "in  Jordan?"  Who  assured 
either  of  these  writers,  that  our  translators  gave  the  render- 
ing "with  water"  in  a  blundering  attempt  to  escape  from 
"in  water?"  By  what  authority  is  it  said,  that  the  transla- 
tion "  in  Jordan  "  was  not  made  on  its  merits,  but  because 
the  translators  w^ere  shut  up  to  it  by  an  otherwise  unavoid- 
able circumlocution  which  would  have  made  their  treachery 
to  God's  truth  "  too  glaring  ? "  It  does  not  belong  to  me  to 
answer  for  the  motives  influencing  those  men  whom  God 
raised  up  to  do,  in  his  name,  one  of  the  grandest  works  of 
all  the  ages  of  time.  They  and  their  impugners  may,  in  this 
regard,  be  safel}'^  left  to  the  revelation  of  secrets  in  the  last 
great  day,  when  He  who  knows  the  heart  shall  be  upon  the 
judgment  seat.  But — I  was  about  to  say,  as  to  their  com- 
petency as  translators  in  comparison  with  fault-finders,  I  was 
reminded  of  a  contemporaneous  anecdote,  but  the  narration 
would  not  be  in  place,  for  I  perceive  that  the  charge  is  not 
made  against  their  competency,  but,  sheerlj-,  against  their 
integrity.     Then,  of  this,  let  God  be  the  judge. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  it  has  been  my  lot  to  adopt  sub- 


846  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

stantially  the  same  translations  of  these  phrases,  which  are 
here  with  "just  severity"  condemned,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  defend  them  against  the  charge  of  being  wrested  from 
the  truth  to  the  injury  of  baptism  by  dipping  into  water. 

1.  As  to  the  charge  of  irreverence  for  God's  words  com- 
pared with  "  the  veneration  of  Popish  translators  for  man's 
words." 

Does  this  mean  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  one  word 
in  two  different  passages,  it  is  a  want  of  veneration  toward 
God  to  use  two  words  in  translating  such  passages  into 
English  ? 

In  attempting  to  find  an  answer  to  this  inquiry  I  have 
opened  the  New"  Version,  and  the  first  passage  to  which  I 
have  turned  is  1  Thess,  4  :  16,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
used  one  word  (iV)  four  times,  and  the  New  Version  has 
translated  three  times,  '-'•with  (cv)  a  shout,"  "wz7/i  (^i')  voice 
of  archangel,"  "?t'z7A  [h)  trumpet  of  God,"  and  once  "m 
[Iv)  Christ."  Was  it  a  lack  of  veneration  for  the  word  of 
God  which  prompted  the  diverse  translations  "with,"  "in," 
when  there  was  no  diversity  of  letter  in  the  original? 

For  farther  light  I  turn  to  the  version  of  this  same  passage 
by  the  Popish  translators,  and  find,  '■'■with  commandment," 
'■'■Willi  the  voice  of  the  archangel,"  '■'■loiih  the  trumpet  of 
God,"  and  "wi  Christ."  To  learn  whether  they  maintain 
their  veneration  for  the  words  of  men  above  the  veneration 
of  our  translators  for  the  word  of  God,  I  open  the  Vulgate 
and  there  read,  "m  jussu,"  "m  voce  archangeli,"  "m  tubse 
Dei,"  "  IN  Christo."  Alas!  their  higher  veneration  has  been 
as  a  morning  cloud.  They  have  irreverently  translated  one 
word  {in)  by  two  words  "  with"  and  "  in." 

And  why  may  not  Ellicott  bring  the  charge  alike  against 
the  New  Versionists,  and  the  Popish  translators,  of  lack  of 
veneration  toward  both  God  and  man,  seeing  that  he  says, 
Iv  may  mean  "m  a  shout,  m  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  in 
the  trump  of  God,"  meaning,  that  during  these  occurrences 
the  descent  of  Christ  shall  take  place? 

Is  it  prudent  to  throw  stones  up  into  the  air  when  our 
own  pate  is  uncovered  ? 


EXEGETICAL   EXAMINATION.  347 

2.  There  is  a  charge  of  inconsistency.  And  what  is  the 
evidence  ?  It  is  this :  They  would  have  perverted  the  word 
of  God  by  translating  loith  Jordan,  but  they  found  they  could 
not  do  it  without  exposure ;  because  they  would  have  been 
under  the  necessity  of  introducing  an  intolerable  circumlo- 
cution ("  with  the  water  of"),  and  therefore,  they  were  shut 
up  to  honesty  in  this  translation  at  the  expense  of  consistency 
when  compared  with  the  previously  made  dishonest  one, 
"ifi7A  water." 

And,  now,  as  to  the  worth  of  this  reasoning.  Is  there 
any  truth  in  the  statement,  that  it  was  necessary  to  intro- 
duce a  circumlocution  into  the  translation  ^^loith  Jordan?" 
Does  the  Roman  priest  feel  it  necessary  to  introduce  any 
circumlocution  when  he  says,  "  vivo  perfuuderis  fl.umi,ne, 
sprinkled  iciih  the  river  ?^' 

Clemens  Romauus  (988)  speaks,  without  any  circumlocu- 
tion, of  washing  "  with  the  whole  sea  and  loiih  all  rivers." 

Didymus  Alexandriuus  (697)  feels  no  need  of  circumlocu- 
tion when  he  says,  "  immortal  baptism  is  bi/  the  Jordan." 

Why  is  it,  then,  that  the  translators  of  the  English  Bible 
have  turned  back  affrighted  at  circumlocutionary  terrors 
which  have  had  no  existence,  or  no  power  to  alarm  any  one 
else? 

But  on  what  is  this  charge  grounded  ?  Is  it  in  the  naked 
fact  of  a  diverse  translation  of  the  same  word  when  met  with 
in  difierent  passages  ?  Then  the  ITew  Version  is  guilty  of 
like  wrong  in  wellnigh  twoscore  passages  in  the  one  gospel 
of  Matthew,  and  times  without  number  throughout  the  Kew 
Testament. 

Is  it  because  the  word  has  identically  the  same  relations 
and  of  necessity  the  same  meaning?  Who  makes  this 
affirmation?  By  whomsoever  made  it  is  made  erroneously. 
The  relations  of  the  two  passages  are  not  iv  udan  and  iv  udan^ 
or  tv  'lopddvrj  and  ^v  "Iop8dvrj ;  but  iv  udarc  in  the  One  case,  and 
iy  ^lupdd'^r)  in  the  Other.  Is  this  an  identical  sameness  of 
relation  ? 

But  it  may  be  pleaded.  Although  not  the  same  in  letter, 
yet  they  are  the  same  in  substance,  and  have  of  necessity 


348  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

the  same  meaning.  What  is  the  proof?  There  is  none. 
But  as  a  substitute  for  proof  we  have  the  assertion  that 
"nothing  can  be  plainer"  than  that  iv  uSuti^  and  iv'Iopddvrj^ 
are  the  same  thing  and  demand  the  same  transhition  ;  which 
assertion  puffs  away  the  integrity  of  all  Protestant  transla- 
tors, "none  of  whom  have  scrupled  to  render"  these  iden- 
tities as  diversities!  And  on  what  does  this  assertion  rest? 
Why,  on  the  assiimptioji,  that  the  terms  "water"  and  "Jor- 
dan "  are  absolute  and  necessary  equivalents.  Never  was 
assumption  more  gross  or  more  groundless.  John  speaks 
of  "water"  in  the  most  abstract  terms  possible  {^v  udart) 
stripped  of  all  quality  and  locality,  beyond  what  pertains  to 
simple  and  universal  ivaier.  Now,  is  "Jordan"  an  abstract 
term  of  like  character,  simple  in  its  nature,  universal  in  its 
existence,  and  without  local  habitation  ?  Is  it  not  a  concrete 
term?  has  it  not  a  complex  nature?  and  is  it  not  most 
definitely  local  in  position  ?  These  questions  answer  them- 
selves. Then  we  have  the  assertion,  that  an  abstract,  uni- 
versal, and  unloealized  term  is  identical  with  a  concrete, 
limited,  and  local  term.  This,  certainly,  is  assertion  enough 
for  one  occasion.  Is  the  farther  plea  entered,  "  We  do  not 
mean  to  say,  that  water  and  Jordan  are  alike  in  all  respects, 
but  only  in  one  respect;  water  is  in  both  terms."  That  is  to 
say :  You  assert  out  of  "Jordan  "  all  those  thing-s  in  which  it 
differs  from  "water"  and  assume  into  it  that  one  thing  in 
which  it  agrees,  and  which  can  be  made  to  suit  a  purpose. 
We  can  submit  neither  to  such  assertion,  nor  to  such  as- 
sumption. 

We  are  ready  to  admit,  that  "Jordan"  ordinarily,  not 
necessarily  nor  by  any  means  always,  includes  water.  Some- 
times, under  this  term  the  banks  of  the  river  only  are  re- 
ferred to ;  sometimes,  only  the  dried  channel ;  and  some- 
times, only  a  locality  without  specific  reference  to  banks,  or 
channel,  or  stream.  Now,  in  "water"  there  is  neither  bank, 
nor  channel,  nor  stream,  nor  locality.  It  is  possibUy  beyond 
all  possible  denial,  that  when  John  uses  the  phrases  iv  odaTi^ 
and  ^v  'Iopdd\^7]^  that  he  used  them  not  because  of  that  par- 
ticular iu  which  they  agreed,  but  because  of  that  in  which 


JORDAN   A   LOCALITY.  349 

they  differed.  That  is  to  say,  he  speaks  of  "water"  as  the 
symbol  element  employed  in  ritual  baptism,  while  "Jordan" 
is  spoken  of  as  the  place  where  the  ritual  baptism  took  place, 
without  any  reference  to  anything  else  than  the  simple  de- 
termination of  the  locality. 

This  possibility,  even  if  it  should  be  carried  no  farther 
than  a  possibility,  is  adequate  to  crush  all  assertions  and 
assumptions  by  which  the  integrity  of  our  translators  is 
stolen  away. 

But  we  do  not  stop  at  a  bare  possibility ;  we  go  much 
farther. 

1.  It  is  usual  for  the  Scriptures  to  state  the  place  of  bap- 
tism. They  mention  "  the  Wilderness,"  "  Bethany,"  and 
"^non,"  as  places  of  baptism.  ISTow  "Jordan"  is  a  locality, 
as  truly  as  is  the  "Wilderness,  or  Bethany,  or  ^non ;  and 
the  same  precise  form  which  is  used  to  denote  Wilderness, 
Bethany,  -^non,  as  localities  where  baptism  took  place,  is 
also  used  in  speaking  of  "Jordan;"  therefore  we  say,  it  is 
denoted  as  a  locality. 

2.  "  Jordan  "  is  constantly  spoken  of  as  a  locality  in  con- 
nection with  baptism.  3IaU.  3  :  13,  "  Then  cometh  Jesus 
from  Galilee  to  ('jti)  Jordan."  John  1 :  28,  "  These  things 
were  done  in  Bethabara  beyond  Jordan  where  John  was  bap- 
tizing." John  3  :  26,  "  He  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan." 
John  10  :  40,  "And  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into  the 
Ijlace  lohere  John  at  first  baptized."  We  say  that  iv  'lopdd'^rj 
denotes  locality  just  as  all  other  localities,  ^y  ^P'niJ-Vi  ^^  BijOavca^ 
iv  ^A:v(vv^  are  designated. 

3.  Dr.  Carson  admits  that  ^>^  "lopddvrj  denotes  locality  and 
nothing  but  locality.  Pie  says  (p.  351)  "  When  we  wish 
merely  to  designate  the  place  we  always  use  in.  They  were 
baptized  in  the  Thames."  (p.  291.)  "  '■£'>'  never  has  the  sig- 
nification into.  When  construed  with  i3dT.Taj  or  iSanrc^cu^  it  is 
not  so  definite  as  e^?.  It  designates  merely  the  place  or  sub- 
stance in  which  the  action  of  the  verb  is  performed.  When 
I  say  that  such  a  man  was  immersed  in  the  river  Thames, 
all  that  I  assert  is  that  the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed 
in  the  river.   It  is  the  verb  immersed  and  the  circumstances 


350  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

that  must  prove  the  mode.  This  will  appear  clear  to  any  one 
who  takes  an  example  in  which  the  verb  is  changed.  Such 
a  man  was  hilled  in  the  river." 

Thus  we  have  Dr.  Carson's  clear  testimony,  that  Iv  ^lopddy-q 
can  denote  nothing  but  locality.  This  is  all  we  have  to  do 
wnth  at  present.  Dr.  Gill,  Matt.  8  :  6,  says,  "  The  i)lace  ivhere 
they  w^ere  baptized  of  him  was  the  Jordan."  Now,  £>  udan 
never  did  and  never  can  express  the  place  ichere  a  thing  was 
done.  And  to  say,  that  a  preposition  with  an  abstract  ele- 
ment, and  the  same  preposition  with  a  locality,  must  receive 
the  same  translation,  is  a  statement  which  has  no  self-evi- 
dencing support. 

What  help,  in  support  of  this  error,  is  to  be  derived  from 
"the  verb  and  from  circumstances"  has  been  already  noticed, 
in  part,  and  will  receive  farther  attention  in  its  place. 

I  now  only  add,  in  vindication  of  this  translation,  that  it 
bears  the  marks  of  the  most  thorough  consistency'. 

1.  "  The  Jordan"  is  always  regarded  b}^  our  translators 
as  a  locality,  and  is  translated,  precisely,  as  are  all  other 
localities — in  the  Wilderness,  in  Bethau}',  in  ^non,  in  Jor- 
dan.    Can  this  be  denied  ?     Is  not  this  consistency  ? 

2.  "  Water"  is  always  regarded  by  our  translators  as  an 
abstract  element,  the  symbol  instrument,  with  which  ritual 
baptism  is  effected;  and  it  is  always  translated  accordingly, 
^'■with  water."    Can  this  be  denied?   Is  not  this  consistency? 

3.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  always  regarded  as  the  divine  Agent 
by  whom  real  baptism,  the  changed  condition  of  the  soul,  is 
effected;  and  the  associated  preposition  is  always  translated 
in  conformity  with  this  idea,  ^'■with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Can 
this  be  denied?     Is  not  this  consistency? 

What,  then,  becomes  of  the  charges  of"  want  of  venera- 
tion for  the  Word  of  God,"  the  lack  of  Christian  integrity, 
and  the  destitution  of  personal  consistency  ? 

These  charges,  also,  are  made  utterly  to  evaporate  under 
an  admission  of  Campbell  not  quoted  by  Conaut.  It  is  as 
follows:  "But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  upon  the  prep- 
osition {Iv)  which  answering  to  the  Hebrew  D,  may  denote 
with  as  well  as  in.''     Then  after  all,  there  is  not  necessarily 


JORDAN   A    LOCALITY.  351 

any  more  of  dishonesty  than  of  ignorance  in  the  translation 
^'■with  water,"  But  Dr.  Campbell  thinks  that  "the  whole 
phraseology  in  regard  to  this  ceremony"  favors  a  dipping. 
In  my  poor  judgment,  however,  it  is  the  very  contradictory 
of  this  which  is  the  truth.  It  is  only  in  a  partial  phraseology 
that  dipping  finds  the  shadow  of  support.  This  will,  pres- 
ently, be  shown  to  be  true  by  a  general  exhibit;  the  speci- 
fication by  Campbell  may,  here,  be  disposed  of.  He  says, 
"Accordingly  the  baptized  are  said  h-'m^iaivziv  to  arise,  emerge, 
ascend  (v.  16)  o.Tzb  too  S^aroc,  and  (Acts  8  :  39)  ^^  too  u8aro(:  from 
or  out  of  the  water."  It  is  marvellous  how  sane  men  will 
dig  pits  and  then,  with  open  vision,  plunge  headforemost 
into  them.  This  argument  of  Campbell  deserves  to  be 
placed  highest  in  the  long  list  of  extraordinary  arguments 
for  dipping.  How  any  one,  much  less  such  a  one  as  Dr. 
Campbell,  could  get  from  the  Scriptures  the  idea  that  dm 
l^divio  indicated  an  emersmi  from  beneath  the  surface  of  the  water, 
passes  my  wit  to  comprehend.  Any  reader  of  the  Greek 
text  maintaining  such  a  notion  is  beyond  argument  from 
me.  Professor  Stuart  (Mode  of  Baptism,  p.  36)  thus  dis- 
poses of  the  "conceit"  :  "But  who  will  venture  to  introduce 
such  a  conceit  as  this  ?  Yet  if  any  one  should  wisli  to  do  so, 
the  verb  ava^dMui  will  hardly  permit  such  an  interpretation. 
This  verb  means  to  ascend,  mount,  go  up,  viz.,  a  ship,  a  hill, 
an  eminence,  a  chariot,  &c. ;  and  as  applied  to  trees  and 
vegetables,  to  spring  up,  shoot  up,  grow  up.  But  as  to  eynerging 
from  the  water,  I  can  find  no  such  meaning  attached  to  it." 
But,  alas!  Moses  Stuart  it  may  be  must,  with  the  translators 
of  our  English  Bible,  yield  the  palm  for  veneration  of  the 
Word  of  God  to  Popish  translators ! 

Having,  now,  endeavored  to  defend  the  varj'ing  transla- 
tion ^^2Diih,"  '■'■in,"  of  the  preposition  Iv^  on  the  ground  of  its 
association  with  the  widely  varying  terms  uSan^  and  ^lopdavq 
(the  one  an  abstract  element  and  the  other  a  definite  locality), 
I  now  proceed  to  show,  that  the  conjunction  of  this  preposi- 
tion with  the  name  of  a  river  does  not  require,  as  is  assumed, 
that  that  name  should  be  used  as  the  equivalent  of  Water. 


352  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Carson,  while  admitting  that  "  Jordan  "  is  a  locality, 
presses  the  point  that  this  locality  is  a  river,  and  assumingly 
concludes,  that  the  name  of  the  river  is  the  representative 
of  water  solely;  so  that  "  in  the  Jordan"  means  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  in  the  water. 

We  freely  admit  that  water  is  one  of  the  elements  which 
enter  into  our  idea  of  a  river;  but  water,  alone,  cannot  make 
a  river;  there  must  be  banks  and  channel,  and  these  are  as 
essential  to  the  existence  of  a  river  as  is  water.  The  name 
of  a  river  may  be  used  as  the  representative  of  any  one  of  its 
essential  constituents,  whether  water,  bank,  or  channel, 
when  it  is  desirable  to  refer  to  either  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
others.  When,  therefore,  we  meet  with  the  name  of  a  river, 
the  assumption  that  it  represents  water,  solely,  is  an  assump- 
tion against  the  ordinary  and  universal  usage  of  language. 

As  to  the  force  of  ^v,  with  the  name  of  a  river,  I  hope  our 
Baptist  friends  will  bear  in  mind  the  declaration  of  their  (for 
all  popular  effect)  facile  j)rinceps  leader,  "  When  we  wish 
merely  to  designate  the  place  we  always  use  {iv)  in."  Such 
is  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  in  denoting  the  places  of  bap- 
tism, ^v  iprjfJ-oJ,  iv  BrjOavia^  iv  Aiviuv^  Iv  ' lopddvTj.  In  connection 
with  the  names  of  rivers  and  other  bodies  of  water  it  may 
be  only  proximate  position  and  not  absolute  inncss  which  is 
denoted.  But,  whether  it  be  interpreted  with  a  severe  liter- 
ality  or  more  freely,  we  shall  adduce  evidence  to  prove  that 
it  may  be  construed  with  the  name  of  a  river  without  mean- 
ing in  loatcr. 

Professor  Harrison  (Greek  Prepositions,  p.  243),  in  dis- 
cussing the  import  of  the  preposition  iv,  assigns  to  it  the 
meaning  at,  on,  near.  After  having  quoted  II.,  XVIII,  521, 
iv  TTurafiuj  at  the  river;  Herod.,  I,  7G,  noXcv  iv  Eu^ecvu)  ndvru)  a 
city  on  the  Euxine  Sea  ;  Xen.  Anab.,  IV,  8,  22,  ttwAei/  'EUjjvida 
iv  Tu)  Eb^eivu)  Uovto)  a  Grecian  city  on  the  Pontus  Euxinus; 
he  says,  "  In  such  examples  iv  has  really  the  meaning  of 
'in,'  but  in  the  accommodated  sense  in  which  it  marks  with 
its  case  the  circumstances  or  conditions  in  which  an  action 


IN   JORDAN,    LOCAL.  353 

occurs  or  an  object  stands.  The  phrase  iv  'Eu^scvo)  tlovto)^  and 
such  like,  are  not  to  be  understood  literally  as  meaning  in, 
loithin,  the  Euxine  Sea,  but  as  descriptive  generally  of  the 
circumstances  of  an  action  or  object  as  regards  its  place,  and 
so  as  to  embrace  also  the  adjoining  region  as  well  as  the  place 
itself." 

We  have,  then,  the  authority  of  Professor  Harrison,  as  the 
interpreter  of  Homer,  and  Herodotus,  and  Xenophon,  for 
saying,  that  a  man  may  be  Iv  Trora^/w  without  being  in  the 
water  of  a  river;  and  a  city  may  be  tv  tzovtoj  without  being  in 
the  loater  of  the  sea. 

Cyrus  (Xen.,  VH,  5)  gives  command  to  descend  "  et?  to 
^■^pov  TOO  T^oraimu  into  the  dry  part  of  the  river."  In  this  pas- 
sage "  river,"  certainly,  is  not  the  equivalent  of  water,  unless 
some  part  of  water  is  "  dry,"  But  the  channel  being  an  es- 
sential part  of  a  river,  when  a  portion  of  the  channel  is  dry 
it  is  perfectly  legitimate  to  say,  that  a  part  of  the  river  is  dry. 
A  parallel  passage  is  found  in  3  Kings  17  :  7,  "  ^at  i^rjpdvOrj  6 
•(tiijAopouq^  and  the  brook  was  dried  up."  The  luater  was  not 
muffle  dry,  but  the  channel  was,  by  drought  and  evaporation. 
"  Brook,"  here,  is  not  the  equivalent  of  water. 

Dr.  Carson,  himself,  presents  in  the  strongest  possible 
manner  evidence  for  the  truth  for  which  we  contend.  lu 
speaking  of  the  ambuscade  represented  (II,,  XVIII,  520)  on 
the  shield  of  Achilles,  he  says  (p.  339),  "  The  ambuscade  is 
represented  as  placed,  '  tv  Trora/iw,  in  the  river.'  It  was  within 
the  banks  of  the  river  thatthe  ambuscade  lodged.  This  is 
a  much  better  place  for  an  ambuscade  than  the  bank  of  a 
river.".  These  soldiers  lodged,  so  Dr.  Carson  insists,  h 
TTorafiui  in  the  river,  and  not  on  the  river,  nor  at  the  river. 
Did  they  lodge  in  the  water?  If  they  did  not,  then  neither 
"  river,"  nor  "  in  the  river,"  means  ivater,  in  the  water.  It 
seems  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  finding  in  this  phrase  of 
Homer  a  fine,  dry  camping  ground ;  while  the  same  phrase 
in  the  Xew  Testament  is  full  of  water  to  the  brim  and  fit  for 
nothing  but  a  dipping.  It  would  be  diflicult,  in  our  day,  for 
soldiers  to  camp  "  in  a  river"  and  keep  their  powder  dry,  if 
"river"  must  be  the  equivalent  of  loaier. 

23 


354  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Carson,  also,  notices  the  passage  which  speaks  of 
Ulysses  escaped  from  shipwreck,  with  the  following  com- 
ment: "He  has  only  the  choice  whether  to  watch  all  the 
rueful  night,  tv-oraiJM  in  the  river,  or  to  ascend  the  acclivity. 
But  why  in  the  river?  Is  he  not  out  of  the  river?  "Why 
does  he  suppose  a  necessitj^  for  going  into  it  again?  The 
reason  is  obvious.  If  he  does  not  choose  to  ascend  the 
acclivity,  and  go  into  the  wood  for  shelter,  and  make  a  leafy 
couch,  he  must  lodge  in  the  river,  under  the  cover  of  its 
banks.  It  is  not  at  the  river,  but  in  the  river  that  he  sup- 
poses himself  to  watch.  On  the  bank  he  could  have  no 
shelter ;  in  the  river  he  could  have  the  shelter  of  the  bank. 
He  might  be  in  the  river,  yet  not  in  iJic  water;  all  within  the 
banks  is  the  river." 

And  so  ends,  most  squarely,  all  controversy  on  this  point 
so  far  as  Dr.  Carson  is  concerned.  Whatever  other  Baptists 
may  say,  their  great  leader  declares  in  the  most  explicit 
terms,  that  "river"  and  water  are  not  convertible;  a  man 
may  be  in  the  river  all  night  long  and  not  come  in  coi^act 
with  a  particle  of  water.  And  John  may  have  baptized  "  in 
the  river  Jordan"  all  his  life  long  and  never,  so  far  as  "in 
the  river"  is  concerned,  have  dipped  anybody  in  its  water. 

As  do  the  classic  Homer,  Herodotus,  and  Xenophon  write, 
so  do  the  inspired  penmen  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Sacred  Writers. 
3  Kings  17:3  (Septuagint),  "Elijah  is  commanded  to  hide 
himself,  iv  rtD  ^eiixdppu)  Xoj'jpaO,  in  the  brook  Cherith  that  is  before 
Jordan." 

It  is  undoubtedly  competent  for  a  man  to  hide  himself 
most  effectually  in  the  water  of  a  brook;  water  will  be  the 
winding-sheet  of  a  drowned  man ;  but  was  the  Prophet  di- 
rected to  thus  hide  himself?  We  have  just  seen  a  compan}' 
of  Greeks  hiding  themselves  in  a  river  without  being  troubled 
by  water;  why  nniy  not  this  Hebrew  prophet  do  the  same? 
We  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  We  are  told  (v.  5),  that 
Elijah  "did  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  sat  down 
(can)ped,  dwelt)  Iv  x^^f^^PPI^  Xupfjdo  in  the  brook  Cherith." 


IN   THE   BROOK   CHERITH.  355 

If  Elijah  was  "  in  the  brook,"  he  was  somewhere  else  than 
in  the  loater ;  and  yet  there  was  water  as  well  as  a  prophet 
"  in  the  brook,"  for  while  the  ravens  brought  him  food,  "he 
drank  water  out  of  the  brook." 

The  brief  comment  by  Dr.  Carson  on  this  historical  fact 
is  this :  "  Could  not  the  prophet  take  up  his  residence  within 
the  banks  of  the  brook  ? " 

We  answer  this  question  very  cheerfully  and  say,  We 
think  that  he  could;  and  are  happy  to  know  that  Dr.  Car- 
son, also,  thinks  that  he  could  live  "in  the  brook"  and 
not  be  incommoded  by  icater.  Barclay  thinks  that  a  more 
admirable  hiding-place  could  nowhere  be  found,  and  that 
"ravens,"  only,  could  bring  food  to  some  of  the  recesses  in 
its  lofty  and  precipitous  boundary  walls. 

But  if  Dr.  Carson  feels  no  embarrassment  in  finding  a 
home  for  the  first  Elias  by  the  Jordan,  "  in  the  brook  Che- 
rith,"  for  so  much  of  those  years  of  drought  as  served  to 
"  dry  up"  the  brook,  wh}-  need  he  be  troubled  if  the  second 
Elias  should  make  his  residence  "  in  the  river  Jordan " 
during  the  brief  period  of  his  ministry? 

And  if  Elias  lived  "  in  the  brook,"  and  "  drank  water  out 
of  the  brook,"  what  was  to  hinder  him  who  came  "  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elias"  from  living  "in  the  Jordan,"  and 
taking  water  out  of  the  Jordan  both  to  drink  and  to  baptize? 

If  when  the  first  Elias  was  hiding  from  his  enemies  it  had 
been  said,  that  he  lived  and  baptized  ^v  rw  xsc/j-appuj  XuppaO^ 
why  might  not  (not  to  say  must  not)  the  statement  refer  to 
locality  merel}'  and  not  to  loater?  And  if  this  is  true  of  the 
first  Elias,  why  not  also  true  of  the  second,  when  he  lived 

and  baptized  Iv  ruj  ^lupddvr]  izdrapu)  ? 

It  is  declared  of  John,  that  he  "  dwelt  upon  the  Jordan," 
as  it  is  said  of  Elijah,  that  he  "  dwelt  in  the  brook  Cherith." 
This  is  the  language  of  Justin  Martyr  (588),  "  John  dwelt 
(xaOd^u)^  the  same  word  used  by  the  Septuagint  to  denote 
Elijah's  dwelling  in  the  brook  Cherith),  ^^ri  t6v  'lopddvtjv  nora/idv^ 
upon  the  river  Jordan."  And  it  is  this  same  preposition 
and  phrase,  ctt'i  tov  'lopddvrjv^  which  the  Scriptures  (Matt.  3  :  13) 
use  to  express  the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  from  Galilee 


356  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

to  Jolm  upon  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized  of  him."  Again, 
proving,  in  the  most  absolute  manner,  that  "Jordan"  is 
used  to  express  locality  and  not  water.  There  is  just  as 
much  water  in  ^t^I  rbv  'lopddvriv  as  there  is  in  ^i'  tw  'lopSdv-^^  and 
just  as  little,  that  is,  there  is,  by  the  necessity  of  the  terms, 
just  none  at  all  in  either. 

1  Kings  15:5.  "Saul  having  gathered  together  his  hosts,  a 
quarter  or  a  half  million  of  men,  against  Amalek,  formed  an 
ambuscade  Iv  tw  yetixd^po)^  in  the  brook." 

It  would  seem  from  this  statement  that  the  Greeks  were 
not  peculiar  in  using  water-courses  as  places  for  ambuscades. 
The  comment  of  Dr.  Carson  is,  again,  very  brief.  He  asks, 
"  What  is  to  hinder  the  place  of  ambush  from  being  in  the 
brook?"  Nothing,  according  to  the  views  which  we  hold. 
Everything  according  to  the  views  of  those  who  make  "  in 
the  brook"  equivalent  to  in  the  water. 

If  Dr.  Carson  wields  a  wand  which,  with  a  brief  question, 
waves  ofl'  all  difficulty  in  disposing  of  some  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men  "within  the  banks  of  a  brook"  without 
troubling  them  with  water,  why  should  he  stumble  at  the 
difficulty  of  putting  "  all  Jerusalem,  and  Judsea,  and  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,"  within  the  banks  of  the  Jordan 
without  putting  them  into  the  water?  and,  more  especially, 
since  "he  finds  no  evidence  in  the  Scripture  that  there  was 
ever,  at  one  time,  a  multitude  with  John  ? "  Is  it  said,  that 
the  word  baptize  makes  the  difference  ?  Then,  we  answer : 
The  point  of  inquiry  now  is,  what  is  the  precise  value  of 
the  phrase,  Iv  'lupddvrj^  h  'lopddvTj  r.draixu:^  and  we  cannot  allow 
our  friends  to  elude  our  hold  upon  them  or  upon  the  issues 
of  the  case,  by  slipping  away  from  things  in  a  half-settled 
condition.  It  is  too  much  the  custom  of  the  friends  of  the 
theory,  when  pressed  with  unanswerable  evidence  on  a  par- 
ticular point,  to  slip  away  to  something  else  without  confes- 
sion of  wrong,  and,  thus,  to  pass  from  baptize  to  river,  and 
from  river  to  much  water,  and  from  much  water  to  went 
down  to  and  came  up  from,  and  from  these  to  burial  and 
resurrection,  and  so  circling  round  again  to  baptize.    There 


IN   THE   BROOK  KISON.  357 

must  be  an  end  of  this.  Let  us  take  one  thing  at  a  time, 
and  make  thorough  work  of  it,  and  dispose  of  it  in  finality. 
Now  we  discuss  "  in  the  river."  Is  water  so  in  this  phrase 
as  to  be  inseparable  from  it,  and  to  allow  the  assumption, 
without  proofs,  of  its  equivalence  with  "m  the  water  f^''  or,  Is 
this  phrase  of  such  a  nature  as  to  allow  Saul  to  put  a  quarter 
of  a  million  of  men  in  a  river,  "  within  the  banks  of  a  brook," 
without  putting  so  much  as  the  soles  of  their  feet  in  icaterf 
And  if  this  be  true,  as  Dr.  Carson  says  that  it  unquestionably 
is,  then,  Why  may  not  John  receive  in  the  river,  "  within  the 
banks  of  the  Jordan,"  so  many  as  come  for  baptism,  without 
one  of  them  being  in  the  loater,  while  "in  the  river?"  That 
is  the  question.     What  is  the  answer  ? 

Psalms  83  :  10.  "  Do  to  them  as  to  Midian  and  to  Sisera,  as  to 
Jabin  {iv  rip  x^tiid^pio  Keiawv),  in  the  brook  Kison." 

"  Sisera  (Judges  4  :  13)  bad  collected  nine  hundred  chariots  of 
iron  and  all  the  people  that  were  with  him  from  Harosheth  of 
the  Gentiles  (eic;  tuv  yjifidppuuv  Ktawv)  into  the  brook  Kison." 

Few,  I  presume,  will  say,  that  the  battle  which  followed 
was  fought  in  the  luater  although  it  was  fought  "  in  the  brook." 

Professor  J.  A.  Alexander  translates,  "  In  the  valley  of 
the  Kishon."  Rosenmuller,  "In  valle,  s.  ad  torrentem 
Kischon,  in  the  valley,  or  at  the  br,ook  Kishon."  Gesenius 
says,  that  "  the  Hebrew  '2  (as  here,  and  in  the  other  passages) 
with  a  river,  is  represented  by  the  Greek  iv  Trora/ato,  and  by 
the  Latin  ad  fluvium."  But  if  we  were  to  translate  iv  tu> 
'lopddvq  Tzorapu)  at  the  Hvcr  Jordan,  Avhat  would  become  of  the 
choicest  popular  utterance  of  the  theor}'  ?  Surely,  in  that 
case,  we  would  be  doubly  in  danger  of  having,  "  less  vener- 
ation than  Popish  translators,"  "  designedly  obscuring  the 
Word  of  God,"  "  not  light  that  is  needed  but  honesty," 
together  with  other  beauties  of  the  vocabulary,  thrown 
heavily  at  us.  And  this  must  be  patiently  endured  while 
it  is  seriously  held,  that  the  theory  is  the  Word  of  God  and 
the  Word  of  God  is  the  theory,  "  if  the  Holy  Spirit  reports 
truly"  (C,  p.  867);  and,  "to  deny  it,  is  to  give  the  lie  to 
the  inspired  narrator"  (p.  450);  and  the  enjoyment  of  infal- 


358  JOHANNIC  BAPTISM. 

libility  requires  that  every  argument  should  be  held  fast 
though  an  angel  were  to  reject  it  (p.  420). 

1  Kings  15  :  18.  "  Asa  destroyed  her  idol  and  burnt  it  (iv  tc5 
^et/j-dpf/uj  Twv  Kidpwv)  in  the  brook  Kedroo." 

Is  ifr  usual  to  "  burn  "  things  in  the  waie?'  ?  If  not,  then  "  in 
the  brook"  and  in  the  loater  are  not  altogether  equivalents. 

Jeremiah  13  : 4-7.  "  Arise,  go  to  tlie  Euphrates  (in\  rbv  Ebfpdrrjv) 
and  hide  it  (girdle)  there  in  a  hole  of  the  rock.  So  I  went  and 
hid  it  {iv  Tip  EbcfpdxTj)  in  the  Euphrates,  as  the  Lord  commanded 
me.  And  it  came  to  pass  after  many  days,  that  the  Lord  said 
unto  me.  Arise,  go  to  the  Euphrates  (t-i  rbv  EixppdrTjv')  and  take 
the  girdle  from  thence,  which  I  commanded  thee  to  hide  there. 
Then  I  went  to  the  Euphrates  {km  rbv  Ebippdrrjv  -KOTaiiov)  and 
digged,  and  took  the  girdle  from  the  place  where  I  had  hid  it." 

When  Jeremiah  hid  his  girdle  "  in  the  Euphrates,"  as  the 
Lord  commanded  him,  he  did  not  hide  it  in  the  loaier,  but 
"  in  a  hole  of  the  rock."  When  Elijah  was  commanded  "to 
hide"  (the  same  word  as  here,  xportrw)  "himself  in  the  brook 
Cherith,"  he,  no  doubt,  hid  himself  "  in  a  hole  of  the  rock," 
and  not  in  the  ivater.  The  name  of  a  river,  then,  is  not  the 
equivalent  of  water.  When  Jeremiah  went  "  upon  the  river 
Euphrates,"  he  did  not  go  upon  the  iDatei\  for  where  he  went 
there  he  "  digged,"  and  we  are  not  in  the  habit  of  digging 
in  the  loater.  "The  river  Euphrates,"  then,  and  "water" 
are  not  equivalents. 

We  may  notice  in  passing,  that  when  Elijah  was  com- 
manded "  to  hide"  bimself  in  the  brook  Cherith,  he  did  not 
hide  himself  in  the  same  mode  as  Jeremiah  hid  his  girdle 
in  the  Euphrates.  The  prophet  did  not  dig  a  hole  and  bury 
himself,  as  Jeremiah  digged  a  hole  and  buried  his  girdle. 
Yet  they  both  "  hid "  (the  one  himself  and  the  other  his 
girdle)  and  both  obeyed  the  divine  command  to  the  letter. 
Now,  to  hide  and  to  baptize  belong  to  the  same  class  of 
words,  namely,  that  class  which  makes  demand  for  condition. 
To  hide  demands  for  its  object- a  condition  of  concealment; 
the  time  and  the  manner  of  concealment  being  unlimited. 


IN   THE   JORDAN.  359 

To  baptize  demands,  primarily,  for  its  object  a  condition  of 
intusposition  without  limitation  of  duration  or  mode  of  ac- 
complishment; and  secondarily,  condition  without  intus- 
position, the  result  of  some  controlling  influence,  equally 
without  limit  of  duration.  Elijah  was  not  sent  into  the 
brook  Cherith  to  play  at  bo-jpeep  with  Ahab;  nor  was  John 
sent  upon  the  Jordan  to  dip  men  and  women  into  water. 
"Bo-peep"  has  precisely  the  same  family  likeness  to  "hide" 
as  "dip"  has  to  "baptize."  Interchange  has  the  same  pos- 
sibility and  impossibility  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  "in  the  Euphrates "  is  not  exactly 
in  the  water. 

The  Jordan  with  Various  Prepositions  yet  ivithoui  Water. 

The  same  phraseology  which  is  employed  in  connection 
with  the  Cherith,  the  Kedron,  the  Kishon,  and  the  Euphra- 
tes, is  also  used  in  connection  with  the  Jordan,  and  in  like 
manner  without  using  the  name  of  the  river  as  the  equivalent 
of  water. 

Joshua  3^:  8.  "  When  ye  are  come  upon  (in))  the  brink  of  the 
water  of  Jordan,  ye  shall  stand  still  (iv  tu>  'lopddvrj)  in  the  Jordan." 

A  nicely  defined  line  is  here  drawn  separating,  by  a  hair's 
breadth,  "in  the  Jordan"  from  "in  the  water."  They  were 
to  come  [haiXOyjre)  to  the  water,  even  to  the  very  brink,  but 
to  stop  short  [i-^)  iJ-ipooq  TOO  u8aT(K)  ^^  upon  the  brink  of  the 
water;"  and  in  this  position  they  are  said  to  stand  (^v  r^ 
''lopddvTj)  in  the  Jordan. 

Could  language  discriminate  more  markedly,  and  at  the 
same  time  more  sharply  ? 

The  same  thing  is  shown  in  v.  13 :  "  As  soon  as  the  feet 
of  the  priests  rest  ev  tw  vSan.  too  "fopddvou^  the  water  of  the 
Jordan  shall  flow  away."  This  translation  of  the  Septuagint, 
^'feet  of  the  priests,"  is  not  so  nicely  accurate  as  that  of  our 
English  Bible,  "  soles  of  the  feet."  The  water  flowed  away 
as  soon  as  the  soles  of  the  fegt  of  the  priests  bearing  the  ark 
of  Jehovah,  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,  came  in  contact  with 


360  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

the  brim  of  the  water.  When  they  stood  "  iu  the  Jordan," 
they  did  not  stand  "in  the  water."  So  iu  v.  15,  "When 
the  priests  came  ^r:\  zdv  'lopddvi^v^  upon  the  Jordan,  and  their 
feet  [ii^d(pTi<rav)  were  dipped  into  the  brim  of  the  water  of 
the  Jordan,  (v.  16)  the  waters  flowed  away,  (v.  17)  and  the 
priests  stood  {It^\  ^yjpa.q  iv  iiiaw  TOO  'fopddvou'j  upon  dry  ground 
in  the  midst  of  the  Jordan." 

Throughout  this  very  precise  description  there  is  a  con- 
trast made  between  in  the  water  and  in  the  Jordan;  and  wei 
are  guarded  against  the  notion  tliat  the  priests  stood  in  the 
water,  while  it  is  expressly  declared  that  they  stood  "in  the 
midst  of  the  Jordan." 

It  may  be  well  to  observe  the  use  of  iSdrTTO)  (7Dt3)  in  v.  15 
as  exhibiting,  very  strikingly,  the  discriminating  difference 
between  this  word  and  ^ar^zi^u).  The  dipping  of  the  soles  of 
the  feet  into  the  brim  of  the  water  involves  an  act,  feeble 
in  force,  an  entrance  into  the  element  the  least  possible  in 
extent,  a  continuance  within  it  the  briefest  period  possible 
in  duration,  and  issuing,  necessarily,  in  the  least  possible 
measure  of  influence.  This  is  an  extreme  case;  but  extreme 
cases  show  the  possible  power  of  words,  and  oftentimes  re- 
veal most  clearly  their  essential  nature.  A  similar  case  is 
that  of  dipping  the  feet  of  a  flea  into  wax  in  order  to  measure 
the  distance  of  its  leap  (Aristophams,  Nubes  I,  2);  and  of 
Lazarus  dipping  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water  (Luke  16 :  24). 

There  are  no  such  cases  of  the  usage  of  /3a7rrcCw,  nor  could 
there  be  while  the  word  remains  what  it  is  and  has  ever 
been.  Current  usage  shows  these  words  to  be  antipodal  of 
'each  other  as  to  restricted  form  of  action,  restricted  time  of 
continuance  within  the  element,  and  consequent  restricted 
influence  over  the  object;  the  one  is  severely  limited  in  all 
these  respects,  while  the  other  has  no  restriction.  Hence 
the  former  when  applied,  secondarily,  to  effect,  or  condition, 
can  only  be  used  where  the  result  or  influence  is  of  the  most 
limited  and  feeble  character ;  iiwhile  the  latter  has  a  capacity 
competent  to  measure  results  which  arc  ultimate,  and  influ- 
ences which  are  most  profound.- 


THROUGH  THE  JORDAN.  361 


Verse  11.  "  Behold  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth  {dia-[iaivtt  rov  'lopddvr^v)  passes  through  the  Jordan." 

The  ark  passed  "  through  the  Jordan, "  but  it  did  not  pass 
.through  the  ivaier.  lu  v.  17  we  tind  this  preposition  used 
both  independently  and  in  composition  to  express  the  same 
fact.  "And  all  the  children  of  Israel  [dLeliacvov  8ca  ^-qpa^)  passed 
through,  through  the  dry  (channel),  until  all  the  people 
finished  passing  through  the  Jordan."  Passing  "  through 
the  Jordan  "  has  no  more  power  to  wet  the  people  than  has 
"  in  the  Jordan."  The  point  at  issue,  namely,  the  right  to 
assume,  in  any  controverted  case,  that  Jordan  and  water  are 
equivalents,  is,  here,  settled  most  flatly  in  the  negative  by 
the  identification  of  Jordan  and  dry  channel.  The  same 
thing  is  repeated  in  this  same  verse  by  the  statement  that 
"  the  priests  stood  [It^  ^yjpaq  h  iiiaui  zoo  'lupddvou)  upon  the  dry 
channel,  in  the  midst  of  the  Jordan."  This  passage  is  en- 
tirely parallel  with  that  from  Xenophon  {eiq  ^rjpav  ruu  Ti6Ta[j.ou)^ 
"into  the  dry  part  of  the  river." 

Such  use  of  language  shows  how  worthless  is  any  argument 
which  is  based  on  the  phrases  "through  the  Jordan,"  "in 
the  Jordan,"  as  the  necessary  equivalents  of  "  in  the  water,' 
"through  the  ivater." 

'Ex. 

Joshua  4:3.  "  Take  up,  ix  [liaou  too  'lopddvou,  out  of  the  midst 
of  Jordan,  twelve  stones." 

There  are  some  prepositions  on  which  Baptist  writers  rely 
with  especial  confidence  to  prove  a  dipping  in  water.  High- 
est on  this  list  is  ix.  On  this  preposition  Dr.  Carson  depends 
with  such  unbounded  faith  as  to  make  it  the  determining 
pivot  of  the  whole  controversy.  It  would  not  be  proper  here 
to  enter  into  any  extended  discussion  of  the  essential  power 
and  use  of  this  preposition,  but  inasmuch  as  it  now  crosses 
our  path,  it  becomes  necessary  to  recognize  its  presence  and 
to  observe  its  functions  in  this  particular  case. 


362  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Carson  says,  that  never  under  any  circumstances  in 
all  Greek  literature,  does  it  mean  anything  else  than  out  of, 
"Well;  then,  according  to  the  assumption,  "out  of  (^z)  the 
midst  of  Jordan"  must  mean  out  of  the  midst  of  2/;«/!er.  For 
is  not  Jordan  the  name  of  a  river?  And  is  not  river  water  f 
And  what  can  "  out  of  the  midst  of  Jordan"  he  but  out  of 
the  midst  of  its  watery  depths  ?  Such  reasoning  is  very  ad- 
mirable and  very  unanswerable  until  we  come  to  the  facts, 
and  then  it  is  neither  admirable,  nor  does  it  require  any 
answer.  For,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of  the  Jordan, 
and  our  standing  in  the  very  midst  of  it,  and  notwithstand- 
ing the  presence  and  help  of  that  sturdy  little  univocal  cx, 
we  cannot  manage  to  get  one  of  these  twelve  stones  out  of 
the  iDciter.  They  are  dry,  and  on  dry  ground,  in  the  midst 
of  a  river. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  a  stone,  or  a  person,  may  pass  out 
of  the  midst  of  Jordan,  without  passing  out  of  a  state  of  im- 
mersion into  a  state  of  emersion.  But,  however  irresistible 
this  inference  ma}^  be,  we  are  not  left  to  any  inference.  It 
is  a  matter  of  the  most  express  and  reiterated  statement  that 
the  coming  out  of  the  Jordan  did  not  involve  any  coming 
out  of  water. 

Joshua  is  directed  (v.  16)  to  command  the  priests  (ix  (ir^vat. 
h  TOO  "lopddwu)  "  to  come  out,  out  of  the  Jordan."  This  com- 
mand is  given  (v.  17)  {'Ey-  f^yjs  ^^  ''^f^  'lopddvou),  "  Come  out  of 
the  Jordan."     Obedience  to  this  command  is  announced 

(v.  18)  (JE^Sijrjffav   ix  too   ' lopSdwou  xai  k'Orjxav  rouq  Tzudat;  ^-j  zr^q  /'^?), 

"they  went  out  of,  out  of  the  Jordan  and  placed  their  feet 
upon  land."  The  Septuagint  speaks  of  their  feet  being 
placed  on  the  land  in  contradistinction  from  the  river,  al- 
though there  was  no  water  in  the  river.  The  Hebrew  says, 
they  placed  "the  soles  of  their  feet  on  dry  ground,"  using 
the  same  word  with  that  which  had  been  employed  to  ex- 
press the  dried  up  channel  of  the  river. 

It  is  impossible  to  use  the  preposition  in  greater  strength 
than  in  the  double  form  in  which  it  is  here  presented,  and 
yet  the  priests  and  the  people  "  come  out,  out  of  the  midst 
of  Jordan"  without  the  sprinkling  of  water  upon  them,  and 


OUT   OF   THE   JORDAN.  363 

with  the  soles  of  their  feet,  at  every  step,  resting  on  dry 
ground. 

'AvsiSt]  ix. 
Verse  19.  "And  the  people,  dvijSrj  ix  rod  '  lopddvoo,  went  up  out 
of  the  Jordan." 

Dr.  Carson  is  greatly  dissatisfied  with  an  interpretation 
which  refuses  to  identify  "  Jordan  "  and  water.  This  is  his 
language :  "  As  if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  anticipated  Mr. 
Ewing's  perversion  of  the  word  Jordan,  by  converting  it, 
without  any  authority,  into  Jordan-dale,  the  word  river  is 
added  to  it  by  Mark.  ...  It  would  be  a  strange  explanation 
that  would  explain  the  river  Jordan  not  to  be, the  river  Jor- 
dan, but  something  else.  This  would  be  a  neological  ex- 
planation" (p.  126). 

The  argument  of  Carson  is,  that  the  addition  of  river  to 
Jordan  makes  the  presence  of  water  so  certain  that  to  refuse 
its  recognition  is  nothing  else  than  an  infidel  perversion. 
But  we  have  seen  that  this  assumption  is  contradicted  by 
incontrovertible  facts.  And  no  man  has  more  utterly  re- 
pudiated the  idea,  that  "  river"  does  by  any  necessity  include 
water,  than  has  been  done  by  Dr.  Carson  himself.  Has  not 
Dr.  Carson  said,  that  "  the  river"  in  which  the  Grecian  am- 
buscade was  placed  was  "  not  a  river"  (water)  at  all?  Has 
he  not  said,  that  "the  river"  in  which  Ulysses  lodged  was 
"not  a  river"  (water)  at  all?  Has  he  not  said,  that  "the 
brook"  in  which  Elijah  dwelt  was  "  not  a  brook"  (water)  at 
all?  Has  he  not  said,  that  "the  brook"  in  which  Saul  placed 
his  ambuscade  was  "not  a  brook"  (water)  at  all?  Is  this 
"neological  perversion?"  or,  has  Dr.  Carson  a  reserved  right 
"to  explain  a  river  not  to  be  a  river"  wjiile  for  others  to  do 
so  is  a  "  perversion  "  of  the  word  of  God  ? 

But  Dr.  Carson  does  not  seem  to  be  entirely  satisfied  with 
this  charge  of  neologj^,  as  he  adds:  "There  is  in  the  passage 
under  consideration  other  evidence  that  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  immersion.  It  is  said,  that  '  Jesus  when  he  was 
baptized  went  up  straightway  from  the  water.'  I  admit  the 
proper  translation  of  a-J  is  from  and  not  out  of:  and  that  the 
argument  founded  on  the  former  is  not  the  same  with  that 


364  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

whicli  is  founded  on  iy-,  out  of.  'And  would  have  its  meaning 
fully  verified,  if  they  had  only  gone  down  to  the  edge  of  the 
water." 

Dr.  Carson  evidently  regards  ix  as  a  much  more  trusty 
ally  than  and.  While  he  places  much  confidence  in  "  going 
up  from"  to  prove  an  immersion,  he  regards  "going  up  out'' 
of  as  demonstration. 

Let  us  gratify  the  Doctor  by  associating  "  out  of"  and 
"Jordan,"  and  see  what  is  the  result.  We  have  the  mate- 
rials in  this  v.  19 :  "  And  the  people  went  iip  out  of  the  Jor- 
dan." Here  is  the  "going  up,"  the  "out  of,"  and  "the 
Jordan;"  where  is  the  immersion?  It  is  quite  evident,  that 
"  going  up,"  "  out  of,"  and  "  Jordan"  have  no  power  to  save 
this  imperiled  error. 

Ek. 

Joshua  4:5.  "  Pass  over  before  the  ark  of  the  Lord  your  God 
{dq  idaov  rob  'lopddvou)  into  the  midst  of  the  Jordan." 

The  association  of  the  preposition  dq  with  Jordan  has  been 
claimed  to  be  decisive  of  a  dipping  into  water.  We  have, 
here,  that  form  presented  in  the  strongest  possible  manner, 
dq  iiiffov  Tou  'lopddvouj  and  yet  there  is  nothing  but  dry  ground. 
Certainly  if  Jordan  and  water  were  equivalent  terms  we 
should  have  here  an  immersion  of  the  profoundest  sort;  but 
these  chosen  men  march  "  into  the  midst  of  Jordan"  and  do 
not  wet  the  soles  of  their  feet. 

We  have  now  examined  the  word  "  river"  and  the  "  names 
of  rivers"  (Cherith,  Kedron,  Kishon,  Euphrates,  Jordan) 
with  a  view  to  determine  their  necessary  equivalence  with 
water;  and  we  find  that  there  is  no  such  thing  known  to  the 
writings  of  Jews  or  Gentiles. 

We  have,  also,  passed  in  review  passages  presenting  the 
prepositions  ^v,  dux,  h,  £«?,  in  relation  with  "  rivers,"  and  the 
"  names  of  rivers,"  to  see  whether  they  could  lend  any 
power  to  convert  such  terms  into  water;  but  we  have  found 
them  powerless  to  eftect  any  such  result. 

We  have  followed  Sea  /Saiviu,  U  iSaivm,  dva  jSaivw,  "  through  the 
river,"  "  out  of  the  river,"  "  up  from  the  river,"  and  instead 


INTO   THE   JORDAN.  365 

of  being  thoroughly  immersed  in  water,  we  have  not  so 
much  as  wet  the  soles  of  our  feet. 

We  have  seen  the  first  Elias,  John's  great  Prototype, 
"dwelling  in  a  brook"  for  days,  and  weeks,  and  months, 
and  having  no  other  contact  with  its  waters  than  that  of  his 
lips  as  he  quenched  his  thirst. 

We  have  seen  an  army  of  some  hundreds  of  thousands 
"hiding  in  a  brook"  without  any  water  hurting  their 
weapons  of  war. 

We  have  seen  an  army  defeated  "  in  a  brook"  without 
victors  or  vanquished  being  troubled  by  water. 

We  hav(^seen  an  idol  "burned  in  a  brook"  without  water 
quenching  the  fires. 

.And  we  have  seen,  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  a  forlorn 
wanderer  "  lodging  all  night  in  a  river"  without  either  being 
drowned  or  having  his  raiment  uncomfortably  damp  when 
he  awoke  in  the  morning. 

And,  now,  when  we  return  to  the  second  Elias,  still  (to 
use  the  language  of  Justin)  "  dwelling  upon  the  river  Jor- 
dan," shall  we  be  saluted  with  that  argumentative  refrain — 
"baptizing  in  the  Jordan,  therefore  (ex  necessitate  rei),  dip- 
ping  in  the  ivatcr?" 

Possibly,  after  this  exposition,  some  apologist  for  the 
theory  may  say :  "  While  we  have  repelled  the  claim,  that 
Jordan  was  a  locality,  by  replying,  '  if  it  is  a  locality  that 
locality  is  a  river;'  and  while  w^  have  repelled  the  claim, 
that  ^v  may  mean  at  (Gesenius),  and  may  include  the  country 
around  (Harrison),  by  declaring  such  suggestions  to  be  '  per- 
versions of  the  word  of  God ; '  and  while  we  have  introduced 
the  river  and  the  preposition,  in  order  to  introduce  the  water, 
still  we  did  not  believe,  that  there  was  any  water  in  the  river, 
or  in  the  preposition,  but  only  in  our  most  trusty  and  well- 
beloved  l^anTd^o}." 

Very  well;  then,  having  emptied  the  water  out  of  "river" 
and  "  Jordan,"  we  must  follow  the  receding  waters  into  the 

recesses  of  ftanriXw. 


366  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

' EfiaTzriZovTO  iv  rw  ' lopddvrj. 

It  is  claimed,  that  the  presence  and  power  of  ^a-KriZw  in 
the  phrase,  "Were  baptized  iu  the  Jordan,"  determines 
"  Jordan  "  to  be  used  only  as  another  term  for  icater. 

Before  giving  reasons  why  this  position  cannot  be  accepted, 
a  word  may  be  said  as  to  the  translation,  '■'■in  the  Jordan." 

Gesenins  saj^s,  the  Hebrew  preposition  and  the  Greek 
preposition  with  the  name  of  a  river,  or  with  "river" — 
Iv  ' lopdavfj^  kv  rJnaijM^  is  properly  expressed  by  '■'•ad  fiuvium,'' 
ai  the  Jordan,  at  the  river.  Matthies,  Rosenmuller,  Alex- 
ander, Harrison,  and  almost  every  one  else,  give  the  same 
decision.  Now,  suppose,  under  the  shadow  of  such  authority, 
we  translate,  "  Were  baptized  at  the  Jordan,"  what  becomes 
of  the  Baptist  argument  from  the  passage  ?  Such  translation 
is  not  only  vindicated  by  the  approval  of  these  scholars,  but 
by  the  argumentation  of  Dr.  Carson  himself.  He  says,  John's 
baptizing  in  Bethau}'^,  means  that  he  was  baptizing  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Bethany.  Thus,  while  he  retains  the  form 
of  the  word,  he  breathes  into  it  another  life,  just  such  as  the 
scholarship  of  the  world  designates  by  the  changed  form, 
ai,  near,  in  the  valley,  region,  neighborhood,  contiguous. 

Such  translation,  on  general  principles,  is  beyond  im- 
peachment. 

But  it  is  urged,  "Any  such  translation  is  arrested  by  the 
presence  of  the  Greek  v«rb."  Then,  let  the  examination 
proceed  in  this  grave  presence  and  with  this  claimed  trans- 
lation. 

1.  We  observe  first :  Under  the  translation,  "  baptize  in 
water,"  and  "baptize  in  Jordan,"  it  is  possible  that  there 
may  be  essential  difference  in  these  phrases.  It  is  in  the 
most  absolute  proof  that  Iv  'lopddy-q  does  not,  of  neccssit}',  ex- 
press in  water,  but  may  express  in  the  channel  on  dry  ground, 
or,  within  the  banks  on  dry  ground.  And  it  is  in  equally 
absolute  proof,  that  fiar^TiXaj  does  not  necessitate  a  physical 
baptism  whether  in  water  or  in  any  other  substance. 

The  translation  then  being  granted,  there  can  be  no  bap- 
tism in  water  without  the  double  assumption,  1,  Jordan  rep- 


BAPTIZED    IN   THE   JORDAN.  367 

resents  loater  and  not  locality;  2,  that  tlie  Greek  verb  does, 
here,  call  for  physical  envelopment  contrary  to  its  more  fre- 
quent use  where  it  calls  for  no  such  envelopment. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  these  assumptions  are  not  well- 
grounded. 

2.  I  observe  secondly:  There  is  a  probability  that  i'->  "lopddvr) 
denotes  locality.  This  position  is  founded  not  merely  in  the 
admitted  fact,  that  Jordan  is  sometimes  used  as  a  locality 
without  reference  to  water;  but  on  the  equally  admitted 
fact,  that  other  localities  in  which  baptism  took  place  are 
denoted  by  the  same  preposition  and  in  connection  with 
the  same  verb.     Thus  John  was  baptizing  in  the  wilderness^ 

^aTzrtlwv  Iv  tjj  ipyjp.oJ  ;    baptizing  in  Bethany,  iv  BrjOavta  jSaTz-i^wv ; 

baptizing  in  ^non, /Jarrrttfyv  kv  'Acvcbv,  and  under  the  same 
form  we  have,  "  were  baptized  in  Jordan  l^a—i'^ovro  h  rui 
'lopdd'^Tj.'"  The  same  identical  form  of  the  verb  is  used  here, 
and  in  the  baptizing  at  ^non  :  "John,  also,  was  baptizing 
in  ^non,  and  the  people  came  and  were  baptized  (i/SaTrnCovro) 
171  ^non"  as  expressed  in  the  former  part  of  the  sentence. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  Jordan  is  a  locality,  and  the  precisely 
same  phraseology  is  used  to  express  the  baptizing  here,  as 
in  the  case  of  all  other  localities,  we  say,  it  is  probable  that 
"  Jordan  "  represents  locality  where  the  baptizing  took  place. 

3.  We  observe  thirdly:  The  presence  of  fiamiZu)  has  no 
power,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  Jordan  to  be  loater  rather  than  locality,  nor 
yet  to  beget  a  probability  of  such  a  meaning;  no,  nor  even 
to  raise  the  possibility  of  any  such  meaning. 

It  is  cheerfully  admitted  that  the  phrase  iiSaTrrtXSvzo  ^v  tcD 
'lopddvTj  stripped  of  the  specialties  of  its  use,  and  regarded 
merely  in  the  possible  force  of  its  terms,  may  express  a 
mersion  in  the  Jordan.  For  example :  If  we  regard  Gen- 
nesaret  as  a  simple  expansion  of  the  Jordan,  as  is  sometimes 
done  and  as  it  in  fact  is,  then,  the  vessels  and  their  crews 
of  which  Joseph  us  (Antiq.,  Ill,  10 — Jud.  Bapt.,  p.  68) 
speaks,  "  ^,3a7:TiZ6v-u  iv  Tu)  'lopodvTj  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan," 
at  its  lake  expansion.  And  there,  at  the  bottom  of  those  Jordan 
waters  vessels  and  crews  lie  until  this  day.     The  form  of  the 


368  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

verb  which.  Josephus  employs  to  express  this  Jordan  bap- 
tism is  (£/?a7rrjC«>'To)  the  same,  letter  for  letter,  as  that  which 
is  used  by  Matthew  and  Mark  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration. Such  and  such  only  is  the  baptism  which  can 
be  got  out  of  these  words  interpreted  in  the  literal,  physical, 
enveloping  sense  claimed  for  them  by  the  theory. 

We  say,  that  such  is  the  baptism  not  which  may,  under 
hard  pressure,  be  extracted  from  the  words,  but  that  which 
actual  usage  demands;  and  that  not  in  exceptional,  nor  in 
ordinary  cases,  merely,  but  in  every  case  without  exception. 

And  here  is  the  proof: 

Classic  Writers. 

1.  Ba-rri'^ofj.evoi  iv  ToTq  riXfxaffiv PolybiuS,  Y,  47,  2. 

2.  BeftaTzri(TiJ.ivri  kv  ruj  atOfiaTi Plotinus,  I,  8,  13. 

3.  Bej3a7:zcff;j.i'^7]v  iv  ruJ  fidOet  too  adyiiaruq .  Alex.  Aphrod.,  II,  38. 

1.  "Baptized  in  the  pools "  =  death  by  drowning. 

2.  "  Ba^^tizcd  in  the  body  "  =  death  of  the  soul  by  corruption, 

3.  "Baptized  in  the  depth  of  body "  =  death  of  the  perceptive 

power. 

Ecclesiastical  Writers. 

1.  BaizTKrOiv  h  j^d/ifxaTi  to  epiov Basil  31.,  On  Baptism. 

2.  Banrcl^oiisvo';  ev  ruJ  ~vp\  6  aiSrjpo'^  ....  "  " 

1.  "Wool  baptized  in  dye  "^remaining  in. 

2.  "Iron  baptized  in  fire"  =  remaining  in. 

Jewish  Writers. 
1.    BanrtZoixsvoq  h  xo}.u,'J.l3rjOpa,  reXsura   .   .   JosepJlUS,  JeW.   War,  1,  22. 
1.  "Baptized  in  a  pool,  he  died "  =  death  by  drowning. 

These  are  all  the  cases  of  this  particular  form  (the  verb 
with  £v  and  a  physical  element)  now  within  my  knowledge. 
And  it  will  be  seen  at  a  glance,  that  in  every  case,  without 
exception,  the  baptized  object  is  not  taken  out  of  the  bap- 
tizing element,  but  remains  within  it.  We  say  then,  that 
the  phrase  l^iaKTi^ovro  Iv  rOJ  'lopddvTi  is  competent  to  effect  a 
baptism  in  the  waters  of  Jordan,  bat  it  must  be  such  a  baptism 
as  loill  place  its  object  wituin  the  waters  without  removal. 

The  baptism  of  John  was  not  designed  to  deposit  penitent 


BAPTIZED    IN    THE   JORDAN.  369 

Jews  in  the  depths  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  richly  hidicrons  to 
see  the  theorist  running  his  head  against  Greek  philology, 
and  Greek  syntax,  and  Greek  nsage,  and  saying,  "All  these 
must  perish  that  our  theory  may  live.  We  do  not  mean  to 
drown,  therefore  (under  our  abuse  of  words),  the  Greek  lan- 
guage must  be  changed  to  suit  our  self-created  necessities, 
and  (^aizTiXu)  must  be  converted  into  ^dr.nD.''^ 

4.  We  observe  fourthly:  The  presence  oi  i3a--iZio  does  not 
preclude  the  interpretation  of  h  'lopddvrj  as  a  locality.  It  is 
possible  that  the  baptism  is  not  physical.  While  the  usao-e 
of  the  Greek  word  is  so  nearly  equally  divided  between  bap- 
tisms physical  and  non-physical,  that  no  one  has  a  rio-ht  to 
assume  a  physical  baptism  in  any  disputed  case.  That  it  is 
possible  for  these  words  to  express  a  baptism  which  is  with- 
out any  water  covering,  whether  by  dipping  or  by  honest 
immersion,  is  not  difficult  to  prove. 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  river  in  which  Dr.  Carson  says 
Ulysses  found  refuge  was  the  Jordan.  As  it  was  "  a  rueful 
night"  we  may  suppose,  that  if  he,  and  any  companions  that 
might  chance  to  be  with  him,  had  any  of  that  wine  with 
which  they  baptized  the  Cyclops,  that  they  would  make  free 
use  of  it;  in  which  case  one  passing  early  in  the  morning 
would  be  likely  to  say  of  them — ^iSann'^dvro  iv  to)  'JopSdvij — 
phraseology  which  Jew  and  Greek  well  understood  as  ex- 
pressive of  an  excessive  use  of  wine.  We  might  complete 
this  pVegnant  form  of  speech  by  adding  to  it  the  words  of 

Josephus,    and    say :     ilSanrd^d'^TO    iv    rtS    'lopddv-q,    6iv(i}    x(>)lu)^    dq 

avaiaO-qaiav  xai  onvov^  "they  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  by 
much  wine,  into  insensibility  and  sleep." 

In  such  a  baptism  we  have  an  exhibition  of  the  possible 
force  of  terms.  The  meaning  of  the  verb  is  classical,  Jordan 
is  local,  wine  is  the  instrumental  means,  and  insensibility 
and  sleep  form  the  ideal  element.  While,  however,  it  is  a 
baptism  quite  possible  to  the  terms,  it  is  a  baptism  quite  im- 
possible to  the  circumstances;  yet,  not  more  impossible  than 
that  baptism  which  must  result  under  the  notion  of  the 
theory,  that  men  and  women  are  to  be  deposited  h  'lopddvrj. 

5.  We  observe  fifthly:  That  the  true  interpretation  of  this 

24 


370  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

passage  will  treat  it  as  elliptical ;  the  ellipsis  to  be  supplied 
being  found  in  Matt.  3  :  11,  and  in  parallel  passages.    Thus : 

,r,a        „,         ,      -,r     ^,      (  iv  uSari  (Matt.,  John))     . 

"  They  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  with  water,  into  repentance." 

1.  In  vindication  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be  observed : 
Whenever  baptizing  is  spoken  of  at  any  other  locality,  the 
form  of  expression  is  elliptical.  Thus  we  are  told,  John 
was  "baptizing  in  the  wilderness,"  "baptizing  in  Bethany," 
"  baptizing  in  ^non,"  all  which  expressions  are  incomplete, 
and  need  the  addition  of  an  essential  element  in  order  to 
complete  the  idea.  Now,  when  it  is  said  of  another  locality 
in  the  same  form — John  was  baptizing  "  iu  the  Jordan" — 
the  inference  is  irresistible,  that  the  expression  is  elliptical 
as  in  the  case  of  all  other  localities,  and  the  same  supplement 
is  needed  in  order  to  the  completion  of  the  idea.  If  to  this 
it  should  be  answered :  The  ellipsis  is  not  necessary  iu  this 
last  case,  because  it  is  contained  in  "Jordan."  I  reply:  All 
that  can,  possibly,  be  taken  out  of  "Jordan"  is  loater,  and 
this  is  inadequate  to  supply  the  ellipsis.  If  the  baptism 
were  such  as  that  of  the  Classics,  or  of  Josephus  (in  his  ac- 
count of  the  boats  with  their  crews  baptized  in  the  waters 
of  Jordan  Gennesaret),  this  would  answer;  the  putting  of 
men  and  women  in  the  depths  of  Jordan's  waters  would  be 
the  alpha  and  the  omega  of  the  aifair;  but  this  is  no  such 
murderous  baptism.  It  belongs  to  another  class  of  baptisms; 
a  class  of  baptisms  which,  to  say  the  least,  is  as  fully  repre- 
sented in  the  Classics  as  are  death  baptisms  by  water  envel- 
opment. It  is  "John's  baptism;"  not  ^^  John's  baptism"  as 
distinguishing  him  as  a  man  from  Alcibiades  or  Timon,  but 
as  distinguishing  his  baptism  from  their  drowning  water- 
envelopment  baptism.  It  is  "John's  baptism  ;  "  not  as  dis- 
tinguishing him,  personally,  from  Thebe  or  Ishmacl,  but  as 
distinguishing  their  baptisms;  his  hai>t\sra  loiih  water  from 
their  baptism  with  loine;  his  baptism  into  repentance  from 
their  baptism  into  drunkenness. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  no  ellipsis  which  merely 


ELLIPSIS.  371 

supplies  water  can  meet  the  case.  "John  was  baptizing  in 
the  wilderness,  in  Bethany,  in  .^Enon,  in  Jordan,  in  water^'' 
has  no  other  Greekly  meaning  than  death  by  drowning. 

2.  We  have  ah'eady  seen,  in  previously  commenting  on 
Luke  3 :  16,  'Eyo)  fxev  odart  ^otztIZu)  vixa.'z,  that  the  passage  was 
elliptical,  requiring  the  supply  of  tk  ixsTavoiav.  Now,  we  are 
not  at  liberty  to  make  or  to  complete  an  ellipsis  at  our  own 
pleasure.  It  must  be  made  and  supplied  by  something  more 
reliable  than  our  imagination.  Dr.  Carson  (p.  329)  well 
says,  "  Words  which  are  introduced  to  supply  an  ellipsis 
must  be  taken  from  some  other  passage  where  they  are 
literally  expressed.  It  is  a  strange  ellipsis  that  supplies  to 
a  word  or  phrase  an  idea  never  elsewhere  expressed."  We 
must,  then,  find  the  ellipsis  which  we  would  introduce  into 
this  passage  literally  expressed  elsewhere  in  Scripture.  This 
reasonable  demand  is  promptlj^  and  fully  met  for  us  by  Matt. 

3  :  11,  'Eycu  p.kv  ^amiZoj  u[ia<;  h  udari  eiq  fiezdvoiav.  This  declara- 
tion is  entirely  disjoined  from  and  wholly  independent  of 
locality.  It  states  the  essential  elements  which  distinguish 
John's  baptism,  namely,  pure  water  as  the  symbol  instrument 
and  repentance  as  the  verbal  element,  l^o  baptism  of  John 
can,  possibly,  be  complete  without  these  elements  expressed 
or  understood.  It  follows  therefore  as  a  necessity,  that 
where  there  is  a  statement  of  baptism  administered,  and  the 
place  where  it  took  place,  we  must  supply  by  ellipsis  the 
symbol  instrument  and  the  verbal  element.     Thus  ^a-rtTi^wv 

iv  ip-^jio)^  iv  BtOrjVia^  iv  ^Aiviuv^  i.v  'lupddvy] — iv  udarc  £tg  [iSTavoiav.      To 

each  place  where  the  baptism  was  administered  must  be 
added,  "with  ivaier  into  repentance,'^  This  was  John's  bap- 
tism. The  reference  to  this  peculiarity,  in  diverse  forms,  as 
"the  baptism  of  John,"  "the  baptism  of  repentance,"  "bap- 
tized the  baptism  of  repentance,"  abounds  in  Scripture. 

It  is  obvious  then,  that  if  Jordan  be  taken  as  the  equivalent 
and  representative  of  ivater,  we  still  have  an  ellipsis  to  supply, 
as  in  Luke  3  :  16,  which  ellipsis  can  only  be  ek  /j-erdvoiav  ^  which 
at  once  and  forever  determines  that  the  baptism  (as  we  had 
before  on  philological  and  grammatical  principles  proved) 
cannot  be  a  baptism  into  water.     To  refuse  to  accept  this 


372  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

elliptical  ^k  /xerdvotav^  and  to  insist  on  the  exclusive  iv  udan^  is 
not  merely  to  refuse  the  express  statement  of  the  word  of 
God,  hut  to  seize  the  sword  and  divide  in  twain  the  living 
testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  set  up  man's  dead  theory 
for  God's  living  truth. 

3.  The  passage,  as  thus  completed,  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired  for  the  most  definite  and  complete  knowledge  of  the 
baptism  of  John.  We  have  not  only  the  i^lace  where  he  bap- 
tized (Jordan),  but  we  have  the  symbol  instrument  of  baptism 
(water),  and  farther,  the  verbal  element  (repentance)  into  which 
the  soul  is  baptized. 

What  is  lacking  ?  Does  some  friend  of  the  theory  sadly 
say,  "A  great  deal  is  lacking;  there  is  nothing  said  of  the 
mode  in  which  the  water  is,  used?"  It  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  such  information  is  lacking.  And  the  only  com- 
fort which  I  can  extend  to  those  who  are  distressed  by  the 
deficiency  is  this  :  Never  since  the  Greek  language  had  existence 
did  a  baptism,  depend  upon,  or  have  the  remotest  concern  with,  a 
modal  use  of  the  agency  by  which  it  loas  accomplished. 

This  important  passage  has  now  been  examined  in  its 
separate  elements,  and  in  their  relations  to  each  other.  My 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  conclusions  reached  could 
hardly  be  more  profound.  Yet  if  the  Angel  Gabriel  were 
to  differ  from  me,  I  should  not  be  disposed  with  the  great 
friend  of  the  theory  to  "  order  him  to  school."  IsTor  would 
I  dare  to  say  with  him  (omitting  the  negative),j"If  John  did 
(not)  immerse  his  disciples  the  narrative  of  the  evangelist  is 
false"  (p.  336).  Nor  yet  would  I  say  to  any  human  being 
questioning  these  conclusions,  "  To  deny  this  is  to  give  the 
lie  to  the  inspired  narrator"  (p.  450).  And,  until  some 
higher  power  than  an  (Ecumenical  council  shall  invest  me 
with  the  attribute  of  infallibility,  I  will  not  betray  the  folly 
and  incur  the  guilt  of  saying,  that  a  denial  of  my  judgment 
is  "to  give  the  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit"  (p.  453).  Before  such 
things  shall  be  Avritten  or  uttered  by  me,  "may  my  right 
hand  forget  her  cunning  and  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof 
of  my  mouth."  It  is  enough  for  me  to  hold  my  convictiona 
with  respectful  firmness,  justly  subject  to  the  criticisms  of 


MAUNDRELL.  373 

frieud  or  foe,  and  open  to  the  corrections  of  a  higher  wisdom 
and  a  truer  learning. 

Especially  in  every  conclusion  as  to  the  teaching  of  in- 
spiration would  I  lay  down  every  result  at  the  feet  of  the 
Only  "Wise,  subject  to  correction  and  reversal  in  every 
thought,  and  word,  and  letter,  by  Him  who  cannot  err. 

It  only  remains,  before  leaving  these  "  places  of  John's 
baptism,"  to  show  by  liistorical  evidence,  that  there  was 
every  facility  for  John's  baptizing  "in  the  Jordan,"  without 
his  being  incommoded  by  the  water. 

Dr.  Carson  gives  no  proof  from  the  facts  of  the  case,  that 
Ulysses  could  lodge  all  night  "  in  the  river"  and  yet  lodge 
on  dry  ground.  He  thinks  that  ^v  noTafiu)  means  within  the 
banks,  and  concludes,  that  in  such  case  there  must  have  been 
dry  ground  enough  for  him  to  sleep  on  "  in  the  river,  which 
includes  all  within  the  banks." 

Now,  we  will  ask  no  one  to  accept  of  our  reasoning  when 
in  the  dark  as  to  the  facts ;  but  will  show  to  those  who  in- 
sist on  cutting  to  the  quick  in  translating  iv  'lupddvr],  that 
historical  facts  relieve  of  all  difficulty  even  in  such  a  case. 

.Mauudrell,  in  his  travels  through  the  Holy  Land,  thus 
speaks  of  the  Jordan  :  "After  having  descended  the  outer- 
most bank,  you  go  about  a  furlong  on  a  level  strand,  before 
you  come  to  the  immediate  bank  of  the  river.  This  second 
bank  is  so  beset  with  bushes  and  trees,  such  as  tamarisks, 
willows,  oleanders,  &c.,  that  you  can  see  no  water  till  you 
have  made  your  way  through  them." 

Here  we  have  "in  the  river"  (within  the  outer  and  inner 
banks)  one-eighth  of  a  mile  of  "level  strand,"  wherein 
thousands,  tens  of  thousands,  or  hundreds  of  thousands 
could  be  accommodated,  and  all  be  "  baptized  in  the  Jor- 
dan," without  being  troubled  by  the  water. 

We  can  also  understand,  by  this  statement  which  encom- 
passes John  "in  the  river"  with  "bushes,  trees,  tamarisks, 
willows,  oleanders,  &c.,"  how  closely  identical  were  the  bap- 
tisms "in  the  wilderness,"  and  "in  the  Jordan." 


374  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 


BAPTISM  OF  JESUS. 


ITS  PLACE— UPON  THE  JOEDAN. 

Matthew  3  :  13. 

Tozt  -apayiveTm  6  '/rjffoD?  aTzb  rr^z  FahXaiaq  em  zov  'lopddvi^v  Trpot;  zbv 
' IwawTiV^  TOO  iSarzTCffOrjvai  uit'  durou. 

"Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  John,  upon  the  Jordan, 
to  be  baptized  by  him." 

JORDAN — LOCALITY   AND    NOT   WATER. 
^Em  Tov  'lopddvTjV. 

There  is  no  possible  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in 
which  Jordan  is  used  in  this  passage.  It  expresses  locality 
and  not  water.  It  indicates  that  feature  in  the  complex 
term  which  has  in  it  dry  land  and  not  fluidity.  The  passage 
locates  John  on  this  dry  ground,  and  to  this  standing-place 
it  brings  Jesus  to  be  baptized  by  him.  And  here,  without 
change  of  position  (if  our  judgment  is  controlled  by  the  in- 
spired narrative),  he  was  baptized.  But  this  will  not  answer 
for  the  theory.  For  how  could  Jesus  be  dipped  in  water  if 
he  was  baptized  "  upon  the  Jordan  ?"  But  it  is  no  novelty 
for  the  theory  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  language  of  inspi- 
ration. The  cases  are  quite  exceptional  where  it  can  take 
the  word  of  God  at  its  real  value  and  just  as  it  stands. 

So  little  sympathy  has  int  with  water  that  it  not  only  will 
not  carry  into  water  when  water  is  not  mentioned,  but  when 
construed  with  water  it  constrains  us  to  step  aside  lest  we 
should  come  in  contact  with  the  naked  clement.  This  is 
exemplified  in  Exodus  7 :  15,  durdi;  ixTtopeosrac  ht)  to  udwp — "He 


BAPTISM    OF  JESUS.  375 

goetli  out  upon  the  water."  Pharaoh  did  not  go  into  the 
water,  nor  did  he  walls  upon  the  water  of  the  Nile.  But,  as 
we  have  heretofore  seen  the  name  of  a  river,  embracing  all 
of  its  constituent  elements,  employed  when  one  only  of  those 
constituents  was  involved,  so,  here,  we  have  one  of  the  ele- 
ments employed  when  the  river,  as  a  whole,  is  intended. 
That  "the  water"  represents  the  Nile  generally,  and  not  the 
water  of  it  specifically,  is  shown  by  the  words  immediately 

following — zai,  £(7jy  auvavzaJv  auTut  Itzi  to  ^s'lXoq  too  TtorafLod — "  And 

thou  shalt  meet  him  upon  the  bank  of  the  river."  Here, 
another  particular  (the  bank)  entering  into  the  idea  of  a 
river,  and  that  which  is  specifically  indicated  by  "  upon  the 
water"  is  brought  into  view.  Such  passages  show  how  un- 
safe it  is  to  press  the  phrases  "into  the  river,"  "in  the  river," 
"  upon  the  river,"  as  certainly  synonymous  with  icaler,  when 
"upon  the  water"  must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  not 
water,  specifically,  but  "  upon  the  bank  of  the  river." 

A  parallel  passage  may  be  found  in  Tobit  6 : 1,  ^/.0ov  ir:)  rbv 
Tiypiv  Tzozaiibv  xai  TibXi%ovTo  t/.s't^  "they  came  upon  the  river  Tigris 
and  lodged  there."  Now,  whether  the  Angel  and  Tobias 
"lodged  within  the  bank,"  or  without  the  bank,  or  on  the 
top  of  the  bank,  I  am  quite  unable  to  say;  this  only  is  cer- 
tain, they  did  not  lodge  in  the  water,  although  they  "  lodged 
upon  the  river." 

While  certain  parties  proclaim  "Jordan"  to  be  only  an- 
other method  for  spelling  water,  the  number  is  small  who 
will  venture  to  assert  that  Jesus  came  to  John  "  upon  the 
water''  to  be  baptized  by  him.  Dr.  Conant,  in  the  New 
Version,  translates  as  a  locality,  "  Then  comes  Jesus  from 
Galilee  to  the  Jordan,  to  John,  to  be  immersed  by  him." 
And  Dr.  Carson's  inimitable  courage  would  hardly  allow 
him  to  say,  "  If  Jesus  came  from  Galilee  upon  the  Jordan, 
as  a  locality,  still  that  locality  was  a  river,  and,  therefore,  he 
came  upon  the  loater,  and,  necessarily,  in  the  water,  as  is 
evident  from  his  object  in  coming,  namely,  'to  be  immersed 
by  him ; '  and  no  great  scholar  in  Europe  will  deny  that 
Jesus  was  immersed  in  the  Jordan,  and  it  is  only  the  con- 
fidence of  ignorance  which  will  venture  the  extravagance  to 


376  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

deny  it."  Dr.  Carson,  however,  might  as  well  build  up 
such  an  argument  on  this  passage  of  Matthew  (cementing  it 
with  his  usual  anathemas),  as  to  present  unnumbered  other 
equally  "unanswerable"  arguments  for  dipping  into  water. 

Justin  Martyr  uses  this  preposition  with  marked  persist- 
ency. He  says  (588),  "John  came  before  crying  unto  men. 
Repent!  and  Christ,  while  he  yet  dwelt  (iTu)  upon  the  river 
Jordan,  came"  ....  (685).  "And  Jesus  having  come  (ini) 
upon  the  river  Jordan  (cV^a),  where  John  baptized,  Jesus 
going  down  to  (^^^i)  the  water,  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jor- 
dan, and  he  retiring  [dKo")  from  the  water,  the  Holy  Ghost 
like  a  dove  descended  upon  him."  The  language  of  Justin 
will  suit  the  theory  as  little  as  that  of  Scripture.  He  places 
John  iqwn  the  Jordan,  brings  Jesus  upon  the  Jordan,  con- 
ducts him  down  io  the  water,  leads  him  back  from  the  water; 
everything  but  "m  the  water."  And,  again  (688),  "John 
dwelling  upon  {im'^  the  Jordan  and  preaching  the  baptism 
of  repentance  [xTjpuffffovroq  lSd~rt(r/j.a  /isTavotac;'^^  Jesus  having 
come  upon  (trl)  the  Jordan"  ....  I  do  not  know  that  we 
can  mend  the  language  of  Justin  and  of  Scripture.  I  pre- 
sume it  must  stand  as  written.  John  was  upon  the  Jordan 
as  his  abiding-place;  "there"  he  baptized;  thither  Jesus 
came;  he  went  down  to  (^^ri)  the  water;  he  came  back  from 
(and)  the  water ;  and  was  baptized  without  (Justin  being  wit- 
ness) being  in  the  water. 

It  may  be  well,  in  passing,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Justin  says,  "John  cried  unto  men.  Repent,"  and,  also, 
says,  that  "  he  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance."  Now, 
I  wish  to  say,  that  between  these  statements  of  Justin  as  to 
the  subject-matter  of  John's  "crying"  and  "preaching" 
there  is  just  the  same  difference  that  there  is  between  s/o: 
and  half  a  dozen,  a  difference  of  form  without  a  particle  of 
difference  in  substance.  There  is  just  as  much  water  in 
//.eravoelre  as  there  is  in  ftdnzcff/ia  iiszavoiaq^  and  there  is  no  more 
of  ritual  ordinance  in  preaching  fid-jmana  iisravoiaq  than  there 
is  in  crying  [leravoelre.  The  imperative  verb  makes  demand 
for  true  and  profound  repentance;  and  the  phrase,  with  its 
substantive  and  defining  genitive,  requires  a  condition  of 


BAPTISM   OF   JESUS.  377 

soul  marked  by  the  influence  of  a  controlling  repentance, 
and  has  as  little  water  in  it  as  the  desert  of  Zahara. 

Justin  and  the  Bible  bear  one  testimony  as  to  the  subject- 
matter  of  John's  preaching  and  baptism. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  baptism  which  Jesus  came  to  re- 
ceive from  John  I  shall,  at  present,  say  nothing  directly. 
It  may  be  well,  however,  to  remember  these  two  things, 
1.  Baptisms,  in  contradiction  of  all  the  conceptions  of  the 
theory,  are  of  endless  variety ;  2.  Baptism  might  be  received 
from  John  without  receiving  the  technical  "baptism  of 
John." 

According  to  the  theory,  as  stated  by  Carson  (p.  55),  "My 
position  is,  that  it  always  signifies  to  dip;  never  express- 
ing ANYTHING  BUT  MODE ; "  there  can  by  no  possibihty  be 
any  other  than  one  baptism,  whether  heathen  or  Christian. 
But  we  have  had  abounding  evidence  to  prove,  that  no  state- 
ment could  be  more  utterly  at  war  with  the  facts  of  heathen- 
ism and  the  declarations  of  Christianity  than  is  this  state- 
ment. I  repeat  therefore,  that  the  baptism  of  John  was 
only  one  of  a  possible  thousand,  and  whatever  baptism  he 
may  have  preached  or  ritually  administered  to  Pharisee  or 
Sadducee,  to  the  soldier  or  the  publican,  there  was  no  neces- 
sity whatever,  either  from  the  nature  of  a  baptism  or  from 
any  other  cause,  that  the  same  baptism  should  be  preached 
and  ritually  administered  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

When  John's  great  announcement,  "Behold!  the  Lamb 
of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  shall  be 
proved  to  be  all  a  mistake,  then,  may  we  hear  of  the  Fore- 
runner preaching  to  the  Mightier  One,  "  Repent ! "  and  ex- 
pect to  witness  his  ritual  baptism  "  with  water  into  repent- 
ance ; "  but  until  then,  we  say,  with  shuddering  at  all  such 
conception,  Procul,  procul  abesto  ! 

Mark  1 :  9. 

— ^XOev  Urjffooq  aizb  Nat^apkr  tr^q  FaXdaiaq^  Tzai  k^aTzriadrj  bno  ^Iwdvvou 
eii;  Tov  ^lopddvrjv. 

"  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  to  the  Jordan,  and  was 
baptized  by  John." 


378  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Eiq  Tov  '' lopddvrjv. 

There  is  no  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which  has  so 
much  of  the  appearance  of  meeting  the  construction  de- 
manded by  the  Classics  in  order  to  secure  the  introduction 
of  an  object  within  water  as  the  passage  now  claiming  con- 
sideration. ^ 

It  is  not  only  right,  but  it  is  the  dictate  of  true  wisdom  to 
make  prompt  and  cheerful  concession  of  all  that  is  true,  or 
of  what  has  the  honest  semblance  of  truth,  in  the  views  of 
an  opponent. 

The  sentiments  and  practices  of  all  Christian  men  should 
be  recognized  as  held  by  them  for  reasons  which  seem  to 
them  to  be  adequate  and  true,  however  inadequate  and  un- 
true they  may  seem  to  be  to  us,  or  may  be  in  reality. 

The  man  who  has  found  a  bit  of  gold  and  some  gold-like 
particles  on  his  farm,  and  has  erroneously  concluded  that  this 
precious  metal  underlies  all  his  broad  acres,  will  not  have 
his  delusion  best  dispelled  by  a  dissertation  on  geological 
formations  as  excluding  his  farm  from  the  sphere  of  gold 
deposits,  for  he  will  still  shake  his  head  and  say,  "  No  mat- 
ter for  all  you  say;  I  have,  found  what  none  can  deny  is 
gold,  and  something  which,  certainly,  looks  like  gold."  It 
will  be  better  to  admit  the  "  looks  like  gold,"  and  in  the 
laboratory  show  him  by  inexorable  tests,  that  "  appearances 
are  deceitful;"  and,  also,  to  make  full  admission  that  his 
"  bit  of  gold  "  is,  in  very  deed,  gold,  pointing  out  to  him  the 
evidence  that  it  is  not  virgin,  gold,  that  it  has  already  passed 
through  the  crucible,  and  is  not  native  to  the  soil.  Thus  he 
is  satisfied.  His  amour  propre  is  conserved  by  the  acknowl- 
edo-nient,  that  there  was,  really,  a  bit  of  gold  and  something 
like  gold;  while  the  mistaken  gold-dream  grounded  on  these 
things  is,  although  not  without  a  sigh,  yielded  up. 

Now,  although  we,  the  rejectors  of  "  the  theory,"  are  pro- 
nounced to  be  absurdly  destitute  of  all  truth,  and  to  lack 
moral  honesty,  far  more  than  we  lack  intellectual  light,  still, 
I  would  accord  to  the  friends  of  the  theory  whatever  bit  of 
truth,  or  whatever  "looks  like"  truth,  may  be  discoverable 


BAPTISM   OF  JESUS.  379 

in  their  views,  assured,  that  the  logical  laboratory  will  both 
strip  off  the  mask  of  a  false  appearance,  and  will  show  that 
what  is  real  truth  is  not  virgin  to  the  soil  of  the  theory. 
Thus,  the  way  will  be  prepared  for  Christian  men  to  abandon, 
with  self-respect,  error  which  had  been  incautiously  received. 
I  do,  then,  cheerfully  admit  the  truth,  that  ^anziZu)  ek  is 
the  Classic  form  indicative  of  an  object  being  introduced 
within  a  fluid  element;  and  I  do  farther  admit  with  equal 
cheerfulness,  that  'lopddvr^v  has  such  a  "looks  like"  ivater, 
that  it  might,  right  honestly,  be  taken  for  genuine  water. 
And,  having  made  this  twofold  admission,  I  have  no  dif- 
ficulty in  the  farther  admission,  that  any  one  who  wished 
very  much  to  find  out  a  dipping  into  water,  might,  with  all 

honesty  of  purpose,  as  he  stumbled  on  li^aTcriaOTq  eiq  rov  Uopddvrjv^ 

cry  out,  "I  have  found  it!"  And,  in  fact,  this  passage  has 
awakened  a  joyous  outbursting  cry  from  the  hardly-pressed 
friends  of  the  theory.  It  is  our  business  to  inquire  into  the 
grounds  of  this  good  cheer. 

Dr.  Carson. 

Carson  (pp.  302,  303)  says,  "  Mark  1 :  9,  then,  itself  decides 
the  controversy.  It  is  into  Jordan ;  and  nothing  but  into 
Jordan  can  it  be.  I  venture  to  assert  that  there  is  not  an 
illustrious  name  among  grammarians  that  will  sanction  the 
use  of  their  doctrine  that  is  made  of  it  by  this  writer.  There 
is  not  in  Europe,  there  never  was  in  existence  a  great  scholar 
who  would  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  was  immersed  in  the  Jor- 
dan. Nothing  but  the  confidence  of  ignorance  could  ever 
venture  such  extravao-ance." 

This  is  sufficiently  explicit ;  an  excellence  seldom  lacking 
in  Dr.  Carson's  downright  style  of  speaking.  He  regards 
the  passage  as  of  such  pre-eminent  value  to  the  theory  as  to 
be  able,  single  handed,  to  win  the  controversial  battle. 

In  venturing  to  confront  this  universal  challenger  I  make 
no  claim  to  be  enrolled  "  among  the  great  scholars  of  Eu- 
rope," nor  yet  of  America.  And  it  may  be,  that  it  is  only 
"  the  confidence  of  ignorance"  which  prompts  to  such  "  ex- 
travagance" as  the  questioning  of  a  decision  made  by  Dr. 


380  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Carson;  but  I  will  "venture"  to  do  so  even  under  the  frown 
of  such  a  foreannounced  verdict.  It  may  be  well,  however, 
for  the  blow  to  fall  first  on  one  who  has  worthier  claim  to  be 
entitled  a  scholar,  even  "  a  European  scholar." 

Dr.  R.  Wilson,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Royal  Col- 
lege, Belfast,  thus  writes : 

"  The  preposition  ecq,  with  a  word  supposed  to  signify  the  bap- 
tizing element,  forms  the  regimen  of  (ianri^m^  in  one  solitary  oc- 
currence. The  unique  exception  to  which  we  refer  is  found  in 
Mark  1:9,'  He  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.'  On  this  con- 
struction great  stress  has  been  laid,  as  if  it  necessarily  affirmed 
that  our  blessed  Lord  was  dipped  into  the  river  of  Israel.  .  .  . 

"  We  are  not  disposed,  however,  to  surrender  to  our  opponents 
the  preposition  elq  in  this  important  testimony.  Supported  by 
the  authority  of  Ncav  Testament  usage,  we  maintain  that  in 
numerous  constructions,  several  of  them  closely  parallel  to  the 
example  before  us,  dq  is  employed  where  motion  is  not  indicated 
by  the  verb  with  which  it  stands  connected,  and  where,  there- 
fore, the  rendering  into  is  totally  incompatible  with  the  existing 
syntax.  Bruder,  in  his  Concordance  to  the  Greek  Testament, 
enumerates  not  fewer  than  sixty-five  instances  of  this  construc- 
tion, and  among  them  he  includes  the  text  under  discussion. . . . 

"We  see  little  ground  for  dissatisfaction  with  Dr.  Carson's 
mode  of  explaining  instances  of  this  class,  particulai'ly  as  it 
serves  rather  to  confirm  than  invalidate  the  conclusion  which 
we  believe  to  be  founded  in  truth.  .  .  .  '  M}^  doctrine  is,'  says 
Dr.  Carson,  'that  the  motion  is  implied  in  a  verb  which  is  un- 
derstood, and  is  not  properly  communicated  to  a  verb  which 
has  no  motion  in  itself  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  same 
verb  can  designate  both  rest  and  motion.  It  is  impossible  to 
stand  and  move  at  the  same  time.  What  I  say  is,  that  when  ei'? 
is  construed  with  a  verb  in  which  there  is  no  motion,  there  is 
always  a  verb  of  motion  understood,  and  which  is  not  expressed 
because  it  is  necessarily  suggested.' 

"  Though  the  writer  styles  this  his  doctrine,  and  introduces  it 
as  a  novelty,  ^-et  wc  find  tlie  knowledge  of  it  to  be,  happily,  not 
uncommon  among  Greek  scholars  whose  works  have  been  for  a 
considerable  time  before  the  learned  world.  Ilemsterhusius 
stated  it  in  a  note  on  the  Plutus  of  Aristophanes,  v.  1169,  and 


BAPTISM   OF   JESUS.  381 

illustrated  his  meaning  by  a  parallel  example  from  another 
Greek  writer.  Krebs  not  only  applied  the  principle  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  Mark  1  :  9,  but  classed  this  particular  use  of  s:'?, 
instead  of  iv,  among  the  more  elegant  constructions  of  the  lan- 
guage. It  is,  also,  found  in  some  of  the  best  lexicons;  and 
among  other  critical  authorities,  Winer  in  his  Idioms  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  Fritsche  in  his  Commentary  on  Mark,  em- 
ploy it  in  expounding  the  passage  under  consideration.  .  .  . 

"  The  bearing  of  the  principle  on  Mark  1  :  9  now  solicits  our 
attention. 

"We  have  seen  that  some  of  the  most  learned  interpreters, 
such  as  Krebs,  Winer,  and  Fiutsche,  consider  the  text  to  be  a 
case  in  point.  Whether  Dr.  Carson's  view  entirely  coincides 
with  theirs  appears  somewhat  doubtful,  as  he  has  advanced  two 
views,  which  are  not  particularly  consistent  with  each  other. 
'Jesus,'  he  says,  'was  baptized  into  Jordan.  This  shows,  not 
only  that  the  action  of  the  verb  was  performed  in  the  water, 
but  that  the  performance  of  it  was  a  putting  of  the  baptized 
person  ijito  the  water.'  Again,  he  says,  'The  account  of  the 
Evangelist  not  merely  asserts  that  Jesus  went  into  the  water, 
but  that,  when  in  the  water,  he  was  baptized,  or  immersed  i7ito 
it.'  Of  these  statements  the  former  connects  the  preposition 
into  with  baptized;  the  latter  supplies  a  verb  of  motion  before 
baptized,  and  joins  the  preposition  successively  with  both,  thus 
compelling  it  to  do  double  duty.  Against  this  flagrant  error  in 
syntax  we  enter  our  protest.  The  author  palpably  violates  the 
principle  which  he  had  imj)osingly  laid  down  as  his  doctrine, 
and  illustrated  at  some  length.  According  to  this  doctrine  the 
preposition  belongs  to  a  previous  verb  of  motion  understood ; 
and  Dr.  Carson  so  employs  it  when  he  represents  the  Evangelist 
as  asserting  that  'Jesus  went  into  the  water.'  Thus,  the  prep- 
osition ££-,  separated  from  ijiar.TiaOri  and  joined  to  a  preceding 
verb,  is  finally  disposed  of  But  our  author,  as  if  he  had  effected 
no  such  separation,  again  very  complacently  construes  the  same 
preposition  with  llianriadrj  in  order  to  prove  that  the  baptism 
was  into  Jordan  ! 

"  The  simple  record  of  such  philology  proves  its  exposure  and 
refutation.  With  either  verb  the  preposition  may  be  legitimately 
connected;  but  to  use  it  with  both,  especially  in  the  teeth 
of  Carson's  own  doctrine,  is  preposterous  and  indefensible. 
Fritsche's  construction  is  obnoxious  to  censure  on  the  same 


382  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

ground,  and  hence  it  does  not  call  for  a  separate  exposure.  The 
conclusion,  then,  is  irresistible,  that  in  Mark  1:9  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  verb  of  motion,  immediately  connected  with  the  prep- 
osition, has'the  inevitable  effect  of  eliminating  from  the  diction 
of  the  New  Testament  the  only  instance  it  contains  of  (iaTzri^m 
followed  by  e^c  and  the  accusative  of  the  term  denoting  the  bap- 
tizing element. 

"Admit  Dr.  Carson's  principle,  and  baptism  into  Jordan  is 
neither  Scriptural  nor  practicable.  Admit  it,  and  Mai-k  1  : 9,  as 
a  boasted  testimony  to  immersion,  is  silenced  forever."  {Mode 
of  Baptism,  pp.  235-40.) 

It  would  appear  then,  that  unless  the  names  of  Bruder, 
Krebs,  Winer,  Fritsche,  Wilson,  and  not  a  few  others,  are 
to  be  stricken  from  the  list  of  scholars,  "  great  scholars," 
"European  scholars,"  it  is  possible  that  something  else  than 
the  "confidence  of  ignorance"  may  lead  to  question  a  con- 
clusion of  Dr.  Carson ;  and  even  to  doubt  w^iether  there  is 
any  self-evident  proof  in  the  language  of  Mark,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  was  dipped  "  into  the  Jordan." 

Carson's  Argument  Extended. 

Dr.  Carson,  while  digging  a  pit  in  ek  for  the  "  boldly  ig- 
norant" to  fall  into,  may  find  that  he  has  opened  an  abyss 
sufficiently  profound  to  swallow  up  himself,  and  friends,  and 
theory,  together. 

He  says  (p.  298),  "  This  syntax  is  not  confined  to  one  in- 
stance in  the  New  Testament;  it  is  found  in  many  instances. 
El<;  is  connected  with  [iar^xi^in  in  the  commission.  Now, 
though  water  is  not  the  regimen,  yet,  it  is  the  meaning  of 
the  preposition  in  reference  to  the  performance  of  the  rite 
that  nmst  regulate  its  meaning  in  all  cases." 

While  Dr.  Carson  says.  There  are  many  instances  of  the 
syntax  wdiich  unites  fiar.Ti%(u  and  eic  (although  not  involving 
a  physical  element),  and  that  in  all  cases  the  translation  of 
the  preposition  must  be  the  same,  namely,  uilo,  yet,  be 
specifies  but  one  case,  that  of  the  commission.  Why  did  he 
not  adduce  those  other  cases,  and  draw  out  their  emphatic 


BAPTISM   OF  JESUS.  383 

indorsement  of  Mark  1 :  9  by  spreading  out  the  translation 
"into?"  "Was  there  a  reason  for  this  failure ?  Perhaps  we 
can  find  an  answer  to  this  question  by  doing  what  he  has 
failed  to  do.  Let  us  try  it  in  those  two  passages  which  have 
come  under  our  notice — "  I  baptize  you  into  repentance  ;" 
"  Preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  into  the  remission  of 

SINS." 

In  these  passages  we  have  (ia-KziZu)  dq  but  not  iviih  water  as 
the  regimen^  which,  however,  we  are  told,  makes  no  difterence, 
the  force  of  the  preposition  is  just  the  same  and  must  in  all 
cases  be  translated  "  into."  But,  how  will  this  doctrine 
aflectConaut,  and  Hackett,  and  the  Kew  Version  translators, 
who  do  not  "in  all  cases"  translate  this  syntax  by  "into?" 
Are  thej^,  therefore,  to  be  placed  by  their  friend  among  the 
no  scholars,  and  the  "confidently  ignorant?" 

We  have  had  occasion  to  complain  both  of  error  and  in- 
consistency in  the  translation  of  e;? /-'STavo/ai' "  i/?7to  "  repent- 
ance instead  of  into  repentance,  and  eiq  atpeaiv  dimprnov  "for" 
the  remission  of  sins,  instead  of  into  the  remission  of  sins; 
but  I  never  thought  of  charging  these  translators  with  "pre- 
sumptuous ignorance,"  or  of  erasing  their  names  from  the 
list  of  scholars.  But  it  may  be  an  exclusive  privilege  belong- 
ing to  the  friends  of  the  theory  to  treat  this  syntax  as  a  waxy 
mass  to  be  moulded  at  their  pleasure  into  the  varj'ing  forms 
"into,"  "unto,"  "in,"  "for,"  while  to  others  it  must  have 
an  adamantine  inflexibility. 

If  Dr.  Carson's  axiom,  " /5a--:tw  e?? :=  baptize  into^  in  all 
cases,"  be  carried  out,  the  theory  is  at  once  buried  out  of 
sight  by  a  baptism  "into"  repentance,  not  into  water,  and 
by  a  baptism  "into"  remission  of  sins,  not  into  Jordan. 

We  are  willing  to  subscribe  to  and  abide  by  this  proposi- 
tion :  Whenever  ^aizriZoi^  in  truth,  has  for  its  complement  a 
word  (physical  or  meta-physical)  in  regimen  with  e;'?,  the 
translation  must,  "  in  all  cases,"  be  into. 

In  applying  this  proposition  to  Mark  1 :  9,  the  vital  point 
which  arises  for  determination  is  this:  Is  "  Vo^^avijv,"  in  truth, 
complementary  of  (iaTzri^u)  ?  And  before  this  can  be  deter- 
mined we  must  reopen  that  snap  judgment  which  Baptist 


384  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

interpreters  have  taken  on  this  passage,  and  bring  into  the 
light  a  number  of  points  which  they  have  left  in  the  dark. 

Does  Juxtaposition  make  Words  Comiolementary  ? 
The  statement  in  John  3  :  22  might  have  been  ^Xd^v  6  Ytj^oD? 

xai  iiSfXTZTiZsv  e;?  zijv  ' loo8aio.v  yr^v^    WOUld    SUch  juxtaposition    of 

words  have  necessitated  a  dipping  "  into  the  land  of  Judea?" 
It  has  been  assumed  by  Baptist  writers,  on  the  mere 
ground  of  the  juxtaposition  of  words,  that  "Jesus  was 
dipped  into  the  Jordan."  This  assumption  cannot  be  made 
without  making  a  handful  of  other  assumptions :  1.  The 
assumption,  that  e;'?,  here,  means  "into,"  while,  elsewhere, 
it  means  iinto,  2.  The  assumption,  that  "Jordan,"  here, 
means  water,  while,  elsewhere,  it  means  loeality.  3.  The 
assumption,  that  the  phrase  £k  'lopddv-qv  is  complementary  to 
^a-Tzri^u),  which  assumption  is  based  on  a  previous  assumption, 
that  the  phrase  denotes  loater,  and  which  assumption  rests 
on  the  antecedent  assumption,  that  proximity  makes  com- 
plement. 4.  The  assumption,  that  [ia-niri'^u)  is,  here,  used  in 
a  primary  and  literal  sense,  while,  elsewhere,  it  is  used  in 
a  secondary  and  figurative  sense.  5.  The  assumption,  that 
/SaTTTttw  here  means  dip,  while,  elsewhere,  and  everywhere, 
it  has  no  such  meaning.  6.  The  assumption,  that  Mark  in 
relating  the  same  transaction  which  is  related  by  Matthew, 
gives  an  entirely  different  representation  from  his  fellow 
Evangelist,  while  his  language  is  capable  of  the  most  abso- 
lute unity  of  interpretation. 

These  points  have  been  assumed  as  though  so  vulgar  a 
thing  as  proof  was  quite  unnecessary.  And  to  call  in  ques- 
tion such  assumptions,  we  are  told,  is  to  display  an  over- 
weening ignorance. 

To  those  whose  "ignorance"  makes  them  sufficiently 
courageous  to  enter  upon  an  examination  of  these  assump- 
tions the  following  considerations  are  submitted  : 

First  Assumption.  The  assunii)tion  that  ek,  here,  means 
"into"  (water)  has  no  adequate  ground  in  the  radical  idea 
of  that  preposition.     Harrison  (p.  210)  says,  "  The  proper 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  885 

signification  of  elq  is  iciihin,  m,  with  the  idea  of  being  within 
a  space  having  boundaries.!'  He  adds,  "  This  proper  mean- 
ing is  seen  in  derivatives  and  in  compounds :  To  confine 
within,  to  hedge  within,  to  be  arrived  within,  to  seat  oneself 
within,  to  lie  within,  to  dwell  within.  Comparing  these 
compounds  with  those  in  which  ££'?  is  joined  with  words  ex- 
pressing action  or  motion,  as  to  come  into,  to  run  into,  to 
collect  into,  to  cast  into,  it  is  plain  that  'into'  is  not  the 
simple  sense  of  £l<;,  but  arises  from  combining  it  with  the 
notion  of  reaching  some  object." 

Kow  if  we  give  to  the  preposition,  here,  its  radical  mean- 
ing, "  within,"  it  is  made  harmonious  with  the  use  of  other 
prepositions,  iv  'lopMvrj^  1£l  "[op8d'^-Qv^  which  place  John  and  the 
baptized  in,  loithin,  "  a  space  having  boundaries,"  to  wit,  the 
banks  of  the  river.  If  we  take  in  the  special  features  of  this 
case,  which  is  found  in  the  presence  of  a  verb  of  motion 
(^?.Os</j,  the  assumption  that  the  preposition  originates  with, 
and  gives  an  exclusive  interpretation  to  iiSaTzriaOrj^  is,  again, 
dissipated.  When  a  preposition  stands  related  to  two  verbs 
of  diverse  character,  it  must  either  be  understood  in  a  sense 
adapted  to  both,  or  it  must  be  assigned  to  the  word  to  which 
its  form  is  obviously  due,  and  out  of  it,  or  out  of  the  obvious 
circumstances  of  the  case,  provision  be  made  for  the  associate 
word. 

In  the  present  case  the  radical  meaning  of  the  preposition 
("  within  ")  is  adapted  to  both  verbs :  "  Jesus  came  from 
I^Tazareth  of  Galilee  within  the  Jordan,  and  was  baptized 
within  the  Jordan  by  John."  Thus,  the  place  whence  he 
came,  and  the  place  whither  he  came,  are  distinctly  indi- 
cated. 

In  any  case  the  statement  requires,  that  the  preposition  be 
referred  primarily  to  the  verb  of  motion  as  the  leading  word, 
and  whose  idea  is  incomplete  without  it.  The  translation 
may  be  to,  or  iinio,  but,  however  translated,  the  exigency  of 
the  passage  demands,  that  the  coming  of  Jesus  from  one 
locality  shall  terminate  on  some  other  locality.  Thus  ek  is 
precluded  from  becoming  exponential  of  ^anriZco  except  as  to 
the  place  where  the  baptism  took  place,  and  the  assumption 

25 


386  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  the  transliition  "into"  as  indicative  of  a  receptive  element 
is  proved  to  be  nothing  but  assumption. 

Second  Assumption.  The  assumption,  that  "Jordan,"  here, 
means  water  is  no  less  gratuitous.  It  is  in  admission  by 
friends  of  the  theory,  that  Jordan  does,  primarily,  denote 
locality  and  not  the  element  water.  There  is  not  a  particle 
of  proof,  that  this  term  is  used  in  a  single  instance,  in  con- 
nection with  John's  baptism,  to  denote  the  simple  element 
water.  The  assumption  that  it  is  so  used  in  this  passage  is 
assumption  and  nothing  but  assumption. 

The  case  requires  locality;  "Jordan"  furnishes  locality; 
and  locality  it  must  remain  until  something  more  efficacious 
than  assumption  shall  work  a  change. 

If  an  attempt  be  made  to  sustain  this  assumption  of  water 
and  a  dipping  into  water  by  the  presence  of  tk^  it  will  be 
found  that  confidence  is  placed  in  a  reed  which,  leaned  upon, 
will  break  and  pierce  instead  of  giving  support.  "The 
venerable  Booth"  (I,  507)  says,  '•'■  Elq^  when  connected  with 
vdwp^  'Ii)p5fb7]i^  or  7toTa;i6<;^  never,  if  I  mistake  not,  has  any 
other  meaning  than  into."  This  opinion  of  Booth  is  un- 
doubtedly erroneous;  but  it  is  advanced  with  so  much  just 
reserve  as  to  claim  the  gentlest  correction. 

R.  Ingham  (Handbook  on  Baptism,  London,  1866,  p. 
324)  utters  the  same  sentiment  with  less  reserve.  Having 
charged  Professor  Stuart  with  asserting  what  was  "  clearly 
fallacious  and  unjust,"  he  attempts  to  support  the  charge  by 
the  flaunting  challenge:  "Let  an}'  person  adduce  any  Greek 
writer  of  any  period  in  the  world's  histor}',  who  has  used 
the  words  -/.arifirifrav  dq  to  odwp  with  any  Other  meaning  than 
'  they  went  down  into  the  water.'  "  The  assertion  involved 
in  this  utterance  is  as  little  worthy  of  our  reliance  as  would 
be  the- proifer  of  the  back  of  a  sleeping  whale  for  a  dining- 
table.  Both  would  be  likely  to  go  under  on  the  first  attempt 
to  make  use  of  them.  There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the 
phrase  of  Mr.  Ingham  which,  of  necessity,  would  carry  any 
one  "  into  the  water." 

It  is  an  easy  task  to  find  passages,  which  by  their  number 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  387 

and  their  facility  of  access,  make  the  statements  of  these 
writers  as  surprising  as  they  are  erroneous. 

3  Kings  2  :  8.  Kari^yj  sic;  dzavzTJv  iiou,  ecq  rov  'lopddvTjv — "  He  came 
down  unto  the  Jordan  to  meet  me." 

This  passage  contains  the  identical  words  (if  Jordan  means 
water)  by  which,  according  to  Ingham,  every  Greek  writer, 
of  every  period  in  the  world's  history,  is  to  put  men  into 
the  water,  and  by  which  Moses  Stuart  is  to  be  proved  "  fal- 
lacious and  unjust,"  and  yet  nobody  is  wet  even  by  so  much 
as  the  soles  of  their  feet.  David  was  not  in  the  waters  of 
the  Jordan,  that  it  should  be  necessarj^  for  Shimei  to  go 
down  into  them  to  meet  him  there.  The  passage,  also, 
proves,  that  £i<;  'lopddvriv  is  not  the  equivalent  of  "  into  water." 
Shimei  went  down  et'?  'Iup8dvrjv^  although  he  did  not  go  to  the 
water's  edge ;  he  may  have  stopped  at  the  outer  bank,  and 
the  water  have  been  "  a  furlong"  distant.  Facts  are  annoy- 
ances to  theories. 

2  Kings  2  :  6.  Kvpwq  dTziffrahe  /jle  eiq  rov  'lopddvijv — "The  Lord 
hath  scut  me  unto  the  Jordan." 

Here  we  have  ei<;  with  Jordan,  and  yet  no  entrance  "into" 
its  waters.  Elijah  was  not  sent  into  the  water  although  he 
was  sent  ei?  'Iop8dvrjv.  The  conjunction  of  this  preposition, 
then,  cannot  turn  "Jordan"  into  water. 

2  Kings  6  :  4.  Kal  TjlOov  dq  rw  ''lopddvrjv — "  And  they  came  unto 
the  Jordan." 

Again,  we  have  the  same  lesson  taught  us.  Elisha  and 
the  sons  of  the  prophets  did  not  go  "into"  the  running 
stream  to  fell  trees,  although  they  did  go  for  this  purpose 
siq  "lopddyfjv.  When  you  remember,  that  after  "  going  down 
the  first  bank,"  and  advancing  "  a  furlong  along  a  level 
strand,"  you  come  to  "  the  second  bank  which  is  beset  with 
bushes  and  trees,  such  as  tamarisks,  willows,  oleanders,  &c.," 
and  that  it  was  to  this  second  bank  Elisha  and  his  company 
came  (for  in  cutting  wood  the  axe  fell  into  the  water),  we 
can  fully  understand  how  ek  "fopddvrjv  may  be  sharply  trans- 
lated ^^into  the  Jordan,"  and  yet  all  be  outside  of  the  water; 


388  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

for,  as  Carson  says,  "all  within  the  banks"  is  the  Jordan. 
Is  it  not,  then,  the  boldest  assumption  to  affirm,  that  when 
the  Lord  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  el<;  "Iop8d^^-^v^  he  came 
into  the  water? 

2  Kings  2  :  21.  Kal  i^r^XOev  "Eltao-d  dq  dii^odov  Toii^  uddrcuv — "And 
EUsha  went  out  unto  the  gushing  forth  of  the  waters." 

Elisha  did  not  go  into  the  gushing  waters,  although  he  did 
cast  some  salt  into  them.  And,  again,  we  are  reminded  not 
to  trust  too  fondly  to  prepositions  to  get  within  the  water. 

Judges  4  :  7.  lial  tizd^u)  Tzpoq  as  elq  rbv  yjqidppoov  Kiffwv — "  And  I 
will  draw  to  thee  unto  the  brook  Kison." 

Sisera  and  liis  army  were  not  to  be  drawn  into  the  waters 
of  the  river  Kison  that  they  might  be  drowned ;  but  they 
were  to  be  drawn  unto  that  river  as  a  battle-ground.  Thus 
the  notion  of  Booth,  that  "  sk  with  Jordan,  water,  river,  can 
have  no  other  meaning  than  into,"  is  corrected;  and  the 
challenge  of  Ingham  to  show  a  case  in  which  xaza[iatvaj^  iu 
such  combination,  does  not  ''carry  down  into  the  water,"  is 
disposed  of;  and  the  assumption,  that  dq  has  a  magic  power 
to  convert  "Jordan"  into  loater  is  eftectually  arrested. 

Third  Assum'ption.  The  assumption,  that  the  phrase  dq  rbv 
'fopddvTjv  owes  its  form  to  ^i9arr;V<^3j,  is  complementary  of  it,  and 
therefore  filled  to  repletion  with  water,  is  equally  groundless. 

This  phrase  has  a  common  relation  to  ^?.Oev  and  l^aTzrifTOrj. 
It  is  not  necessary  that  this  relation  should  be  the  same  in 
all  respects;  nor,  that  it  should  be  exhibited  in  the  elements 
of  the  phrase  separately  considered.  The  form  of  the  phrase 
may  be  due  to  one  verb  rather  than  to  the  other,  while  under 
that  form  may  be  embraced,  and  out  of  it  may  be  deduced, 
all  that  is  suitable  and  required  by  the  other. 

There  is,  obviously,  one  aspect  in  which  tliis  phrase  may 
stand  in  a  common  relation  to  these  diverse  verbs;  it  is 
the  relation  of  locality.  The  verb  r^)^Oev  demands  a  locality 
on  which  its  movement  may  terminate,  which  is  furnished 
by  "Jordan;"  and  l^aizriaO-q  demands  a  locality  wliore  its 
requirement  may  be  executed,  and  this,  too,  is  found  in 


BAPTISM   OF  JESUS.  389 

"Jordan."  But  one  of  these  verbs  is  a  verb  of  motion, 
while  the  other  is  not;  if,  therefore,  the  locality  which  both 
call  for  be  but  once  expressed,  there  must  be  a  choice  as  to 
the  form  of  the  preposition  especially  adapted  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  one  or  the  other;  The  choice  has  fallen  on  e/?, 
satellitic  to  verbs  of  motion,  and  we  must  regard  the  form 
in  which  "Jordan"  (embodying  the  common  requirement 
of  locality)  is  presented,  as  due  to  ^X0ev^  the  verb  of  motion. 

This  is  the  usual  course  pursued  under  like  circumstances. 
The  reason  for  it  is  not  established  to  universal  satisfaction. 
Some  (Ilalley)  regard  it  as  a  corruption  of  language.  Some 
(Krebs)  regard  it  as  an  elegance.  Some  (Matthies)  suppose 
that  £('?  reflects  its  power  back  upon  the  verb  imparting  to  it 
motion.  While  others  (Carson)  think  that  a  verb  of  motion 
should  be  understood. 

Dr.  Carson  remarks :  "  This  phraseology  is  exemplified 
by  Xenophon,  '  Cyrus  eommauded  an  officer  to  stand  mto 
the  front.'  ^ow,  there  must  here  be  motion  before  stand- 
ing. "VVe  ourselves  exemplify  this  every  day.  A  soldier  not 
in  straight  line  is  commanded  to  stand  into  his  rank." 

"Stand  into  rank"  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  fuller  form, 
"  Go,  from  the  place  in  which  you  now  stand,  into  rank, 
and  stand  there,  in  rank."  The  form  "m^o  rank"  is  due  to 
the  verb  of  motion,  and  "wi  rank"  is  involved  in  "stand- 
ing" after  reaching  "into  rank."  So,  the  form  ei<;  'lopddvrjv^ 
place  whither,  is  due  to  the  movement  from  Nazareth,  while 
in  that  phrase  (the  baptism  taking  place  subsequent  to  the 
reaching  that  point)  is  necessarily  involved  iv  'lopddvrjv^  place 
where. 

The  following  are  some,  of  many,  illustrative  passages : 

Acts  8  :  40..  0am7:o(:  dk  kupr^O-r]  ei^  "Af^ioTov — "  Philip  was  found  at 
(literally  unto)  Azotus." 

In  this  passage  we  have  a  form  abbreviated  beyond  that 
of  Mark  1 :  9  by  reason  of  the  omission  of  the  verb  of  motion. 

The  translation  of  the  passage  as  given  above  is  taken 
from  the  Commentary  on  Acts  by  Dr.  Hackett,  Professor 
of  Biblical  Literature  for  many  years  in  Newton  (Baptist) 


390  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Theological  Seminary,  and  recently  transferred  to  the  Bap- 
tist Theological  Seminary  at  Rochester,  N".  Y.  The  per- 
sonal character  and  accomplished  scholarship  of  Professor 
Hackett  needs  indorsement  from  no  one;  but  recollections 
of  personal  association  in  student  days  prompt  me  in  pass- 
ing to  pay  heart  homage  to  them  both.  This  eminent 
scholar,  in  explanation  of  his  translation,  "Philip  was  found 
at  (literally  unto)  Azotus,"  adds,  "z.  e.,  was  next  heard  of 
there,  after  the  transaction  in  the  desert ;  ek  arises  from  the 
idea  of  the  journey  thither."  Thus,  in  the  absence  of  a  verb 
of  motion  in  the  text.  Professor  Hackett  supplies  one  in 
order  to  meet  the  exigency  of  the  syntax. 

He,  also,  approves  the  translation  "at"  (which  meaning 
Carson  says  this  preposition  never  has),  while  he  regards 
"unto"  as  more  literal. 

Although,  then,  eiq''AZ(OTov  stands  in  immediate  juxtaposi- 
tion with  lupiOt)^  it  does  not  derive  its  form  from  that  verb, 
but  from  one  which  must  be  supplied.     It  is  also  obvious, 
that  under, the  foreign  form  "was  found  unto  Azotus"  is 
necessarily  involved  "m  or  at  Azotus,"  the  form  which  is 
specifically  demanded  by  iopie-q.     Professor  Hackett,  very 
properly,  abandons  in  his  translation  the  Greek  form  which 
identifies  the  preposition  with  the  verb  of  motion  under- 
stood, and  brings  it  into  conformity  with  that  which  is  ex- 
pressed, "  was  found  at  Azotus,"  making  it  much  more  in- 
telligible to  the  English  reader.     He  thus  justifies  the  prin- 
ciple (although  he  might  not  accept  the  application)  which 
refuses  to  translate  Mark  1:9,"  He  came  from  Xazareth  of 
Galilee  and  was  baptized  unto  Jordan,"  but  translates,  more 
intelligibly,  "He  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee  and  was 
baptized  at  Jordan."     This  syntax  and  this  translation  are 
entirely  identical  with  that  of  Professor  Hackett's — "Philip 
came  from  the  desert  and  was  found  {ek  "A!:wr<>v)  at  Azotus." 
To  whichever  verb   the  preposition  is  made  confornuible, 
another  preposition  suitable  to  the   nature  of  the  second 
verb  must  be  understood.    Philip  came  unto,  and  was  found 
at,  Azotus.     Jesus  came  unto,  and  was  baptized  at,  Jordan. 
And  this  is  just  what  Matthew  says  (3  :  13). 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  391 

John  20  :  19.  ^Xdsv  6  "" hianu^^  /.at  sTTT]^  siq  to  [liaov — "  Jesiis  came, 
and  stood,  into  (unto,  within)  the  midst." 

Under  no  possible  view  can  ek  rd  [liaov  derive  its  form  from 
eazTj  with  which  it  is  in  juxtaposition.  We  must  expound 
this  form  by  the  remoter  ^lOtv.  We  may  either  retain  the 
form  and  relation  of  the  preposition,  translating,  "Jesus 
came  into  the  midst  and  stood  there;"  or,  change  the  form 
and  relation  of  the  preposition,  translating,  "Jesus  came 
and  stood  within  the  midst."  Either  translation  has  adequate 
foundation.  But  a  translation  which  would  disrupt  the  rela- 
tion of  eiq  with  ijXOziv^  and  form  a  relation  with  £Tr>j,  under  a 
conception  peculiar  to  that  word  and  exclusive  of  its  associate 
verb,  is  a  translation  wholly  without  reason.  The  striking 
harmony  between  the  structure  of  this  passage  and  that  in 
Mark  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  when  placed  side  by  side : 

Mark  1  :  9.  ^XOsv  'I7j,tou<;       xa)  kiHanriffdy]        e^c  roV  ' lopddv^v. 

John  20 :  19.        rjlOsv  ^Irjffou';        xai  sarrj  eiq  to  /liaov. 

If  e<V  Tov  'lopddvrjv  is  made  to  depend  on  hfta-TiaOrj^  and  to 
signify  dipping  into  water,  then,  all  relation  with  -^Xdev  is 
dissolved,  contrary  to  the  construction,  which  shows  a  com- 
mon interest  on  the  part  of  those  verbs  in  this  phrase,  and 
which  can  only  be  met  by  community  of  place — the  place 
whither  he  came,  and  the  place  where  he  was  baptized. 

But  if  it  be  possible  as  a  matter  of  syntax,  thus  to  account 
for  the  form  of  this  phrase,  then,  an  impassable  barrier  has 
been  established  against  the  conclusion  "  Mark  1  :  9  itself 
decides  the  controversy.  It  is  into  Jordan  ;  and  nothing  but 
into  Jordan  can  it  be."  I  say,  an  impassable  barrier  is  estab- 
lished against  this  conclusion  if  it  be  j^ossible  to  account  for 
this  syntax  in  any  other  way,  for  Dr.  Carson  unhesitatingly 
admits,  that  while  possibility  cannot  prove,  3'et,  it  may  very 
effectively  object.  We  expect  to  do  something  more  than 
indicate  a  possible  explanation,  but  at  this  stage  of  the  argu- 
ment against  any  dipping  into  water  being  contained  in  this 
passage,  we  content  ourselves  with  showing,  that  it  is  quite 
possible  to  account  for  ek  tov  'lopSdvjiv  without  making  it  de- 
pendent for  its  life  on  ijSaTtTcaOrj. 


392  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

Matt.  2  :  23.  i}.Ou)v,  xarcuxyjaev,  £<c  TTwArv  hyo;ii>rjV  Na'^apiz — "  Came 
into  a  cit}^  called  Nazareth,  and  dwelt  there." 

How  dq  rMi'^  can  be  made  to  depend  for  its  form  on  the 
verb  of  rest,  with  which  it  is  associated  bj  immediate  posi- 
tion, I  do  not  know.  It  is  precisely  that  form  which  is  de- 
manded by  the  remoter  verb  of  motion. 

The  New  Version  translates,  "  came  and  dwelt  m,''  con- 
forming the  preposition  to  the  verb  of  rest;  as,  also,  in  Acts 
8:40,  "was  found  at  Azotas  (e;?  "iCwrov").  That  version, 
however,  is  not  satisfied  with  "  was  baptized  at  Jordan  {^k 

^lopdd'^Tjv     ). 

Acts  12  :  19.  xaTeXOoJv  and  rr^q  ^ louddtaq  eig  rijv  hairrdpia'^^  diirpi^Ssv 
— "Went  down  from  Judea  unto  Caesareti,  and  abode  there." 

The  collocation  of  the  preposition  and  its  regimen  is  dif- 
ferent, here,  from  the  preceding  quotations.  Does  any  one 
feel,  on  that  account,  any  more  assured  of  their  logical  rela- 
tion to  xarsXOajv^  rather  than  to  diirpciSev'f  Certainly  no  one 
would  think,  now,  of  making  the  form  of  the  preposition 
and  its  case  to  depend  upon  the  verb  of  rest.  But  every 
one  will  take  place  out  of  the  point  on  which  the  verb  of 
motion  terminates,  and  attach  it,  verbally  or  mentally,  to 
the  verb  of  motion.  This  is  done,  in  the  New  Version,  by 
supplying  the  adverb  of  place — "  and  there  abode."  And 
this  is  just  what  must  be  done  under  the  other  arrangement 
of  words.  In  the  sentence,  "  The  ball  was  shot  into  the 
wood  and  remained,"  we  supplement,  in  word  or  thought, 
the  verb  of  rest,  by  "  there,"  or  "  in  the  wood."  And  if  the 
sentence  should  be,  "  The  ball  was  shot,  and  remained,  into 
the  wood,"  we  could  only,  on  any  rational  interpretation, 
attach  "  into  the  wood,"  logically,  to  the  verb  of  motion,  and 
treat  "and  remained"  as  an  interjected  addendum  which 
secures  to  itself  position  (in  the  wood)  from  the  associate 
words. 

Luke  21  :  37.  i^£p^6n^voq  rjo)J.'l,tro  dq  Tu  op(K  ru  xaXoopcvoy  iXaiwv — 
"  Went  out  unto  the  mount  called  of  OHvcs,  and  lodged." 

Matt.  21  :  17.  l^r,)Ms:v  equ)  zr^q  Tzuhwt;  eiq  JhjOmiav,  xai  rjiMtffOrj  ixel — 
"  lie  went  out  of  the  city  unto  Bethany',  and  lodged  there.'-' 


BAPTISM   OF  JESUS.  393 

These  two  passages  are  placed  together  both  because  of 
agreement  and  difi'erence.  They  agree  in  having  the  same 
verbs  both  of  motion  and  of  rest.  They  differ  in  the  collo- 
cation- of  the  preposition  and  its  regimen.  In  the  first  pas- 
sage, it  is  in  juxtaposition  with  the  verb  of  rest;  and  in  the 
second,  it  is  placed  in  relation  with  the  verb  of  motion.  In 
the  second  passage  we  have  expressed,  what  must  in  all 
other  cases  be  supplied,  or  its  equivalent  (^zsi)  the  adverb 
of  place,  which  attaches  to  the  verb  of  rest. 

Such  usage  appears  to  establish,  very  conclusively,  that  it 
is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  preposition  and  its 
regimen  precede  or  follow  the  verb  of  rest. 

John  9  :  7.  "YTzaye,  v{(pat,  eiV  rijv  xoXufJLlSrjOpav  toTj  ^dwd/i — "  Go, 
wash  at  the  pool  of  Siloam." 

John  9:11.  "T-ayz  tlq  TTjv  xaXufJLJSTJdpav  tou  Idu)d/i  xal  vitpai — "  Go 
unto  the  pool  of  Siloam,  and  wash." 

These  two  passages  refer  to  the  same  transaction  and 
claim  to  make  report  of  the  same  command.  Both  contain 
the  same  identical  words,  and  differ  only  in  their  arrange- 
ment. Does  this  difference  in  the  verbal  arrangement  work 
any  change  in  the  logical  relations  of  the  words? 

N"o  two  passages  could  more  perfectly  embrace  within 
themselves  the  elements  of  self-interpretation.  'Eov  could 
passages  be  more  kindred  in  their  elements  than  these  pas- 
sages and  that  in  Mark  1  :  9. 

They  all  have  verbs  of  motion  and  of  rest;  they  all  declare 
motion  unto  a  water  locality;  they  all  contemplate  the  use 
of  the  water  in  application  to  the  person;  and  they  all  make 
use  of  the  preposition  ek,  uow,  in  juxtaposition  with  the  verb 
of  motion  and,  now,  in  immediate  sequence  of  the  verb  of 
rest,  employing  but  one  preposition  for  the  two  verbs. 

Translation. 

The  translation  of  these  passages,  as  given  by  the  N'ew 
Version,  is  as  follows :  John  9:7,"  Go,  wash  thyself  at  the 
pool  of  Siloam."  This  translation  modifies  the  preposition 
in  accommodation  with  the  verb  of  rest.     With  the  avowal 


394  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

of  such  purpose  no  exception  can  be  justly  made  to  it.  This 
is  the  translation  of  the  Quarto,  Greek;  but  the  later  revised 
English  translates,  "  Go  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam."  This 
translation  seems  to  proceed  on  the  interchangeableness  of 
ek  and  iv^  and  the  assumption  by  the  former  of  the  meaning 
i?},  and  by  the  latter  of  the  meaning  into.  This  idea  Rosen- 
miiller  refers  to  in  the  interpretation  of  Mark  1:9,"  Quidam 
ei"?  hie  positum  esse  pro  ^v  enallage  Scriptoribus  cum  Sacris, 
tum  profanis  usitatissima,  existimant." 

The  idea  of  such  interchange  and  exchange  of  meaning 
is  not  approved  by  the  best  writers. 

Harrison  (p.  213)  says  : 

"  The  accusative  with  e;'?,  when  used  with  verbs  not  contain- 
ing the  idea  of  motion,  has  more  obviously  the  sense  'as  to,'  'as 
regards,'  and  marks  within  what  limits  the  jireceding  statement 
of  which  it  is  the  qualification  is  to  be  taken."  He  adds,  "  Other- 
wise the  verb  of  rest  might  he  considered  as  used  in  a  pregnant 
sense,  as,  Od.,  XX,  96,  i^  jiiyapov  -/.aziO-qxev  im  Opovoo,  he  came  into 
the  house  and  deposited  them;  this  would  not  materially  affect 
the  meaning  of  either  the  accusative  or  the  preposition.  So,  II., 
XV,  275,  ifdvTj  Xlq  elq  vdo'/ ;  here  eya^^Tj  may  be  considered  as  having 
a  pregnant  sense,  '  the  lion  came  into  the  path  and  so  appeared.'  " 

In  reference  to  tiie  preposition  iv  being  rendered  by  into,  he 
says  (p.  254),  "  In  quite  a  number  of  cases  iv  with  its  case  is  used 
with  verbs  of  action  or  motion,  where  ei"?  with  the  accusative 
and  having  the  sense  'into'  might  have  been  expected:  Xen. 
Hell.,  IV,  5,  5,  III  ^'  iv  TuJ '  Ilpaiu)  xa-a-£cp^uy6T£^,  not  those  'who 
had  fled  for  refuge  into  the  Heraium,'  but  '  those  who  had  fled 
for  refuge,  and,  as  such,  were  in  the  Ileraium.'  A  little  before, 
in  the  same  paragraph,  the  expression  used  with  refei'ence  to 
the  same  persons  and  the  same  occuri'cncc  is,  i.q  Sk  to  "Ilpatov 
xarifuyiiv.  In  this  place,  the  writer  speaks  of  persons  who  fled 
for  refuge  into  the  Herasum;  in  the  former,  of  the  same  persons 
who  were  in  the  temple,  having  fled  thither  for  refuge." 

These  passages  are  entirely  parallel  with  John  9:  7,  11, 
e:^cept  that  the  latter  retain  £<<?  in  both.  But  the  same  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation  applies,  whether  in  the  case  of  iv  with 
a  verb  of  motion,  or  of  et?  with  a  verb  of  rest.  In  neither 
case  are  the  meanings  to  be  confounded  together. 


BAPTISM   OF   JESUS.  395 

That  the  Baptist  version  is  made  on  this  idea  of  confusion 
in  these  prepositions  would  appear  from  the  fact,  that  they 
translate  John  9:7,"  Go,  wash  (£<?)  in  the  pool,"  and  John 
5:4,"  Went  down  (iv)  into  the  pool." 

"Winer  objects  to  this  idea.     He  says  (p.  412,  4): 

"  It  was  formerly  supposed,  that  in  the  New  Testament  iv  was 
employed  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  with  verbs  of  motion 
or  direction  to  denote  into,  as  John  5  : 4,  ayytluq  y.ari^atvev  iv  rrj 
7.oXui±ii-qOpa..  The  latter,  it  was  imagined,  was  used  with  verbs 
of  rest  to  signify  m,  as  John  9  :  7,  v;V'«'  ^'^  "^'^  xoXui^Opav.  Homer 
uses  h  with  verbs  of  motion  to  indicate  at  the  same  time  the 
result  of  the  motion,  that  is,  rest.  This  they  do  from  a  love  of 
terseness  peculiar  to  the  Greek  race. 

"More  surprising  still  are  the  passages  adduced  in  support  of 
the  assertion,  that  ej?  is  used  for  h.  Even  in  Greek  authors  e^c 
is  not  unfrequently  construed  with  verbs  of  rest;  and  then  the 
idea  of  motion  (preceding  or  accompanying)  was  originally  in- 
cluded, agreeably  to  the  principle  of  breviloquentia  mentioned 
above.  In  this  Avay  is  to  be  explained  Acts  8  :  40,  'Philip  was 
found  (elq)  conducted  to  Azotus.'  In  John  9  :  7,  £l^  t^v  xoXu!J.^7)dpav 
is,  as  respects  sense,  to  be  connected  with  vnays,  cf.  v.  11.  So 
Luke  21 :  37.     Still  more  easy  of  explanation  is  Mark  1  : 9." 

Thus,  these  high  authorities  take  away,  on  naked  gram- 
matical principles,  from  the  theory  the  passage  which,  of 
itself,  was  to  settle  the  controversy  by  converting  a  locality 
into  water,  robbing  a  verb  of  motion  of  its  preposition,  and 
revolutionizing  the  character  of  /Sarrrj'Cw  ! 

The  New  Version  translates  John  9  :  11,  "  Go  to  [elq)  the 
pool  of  Siloani  and  wash."  In  a  note  it  is  said  :  "It  is  gen- 
erall}^  supposed  that  he  was  not  required  to  wash  his  entire 
body.  Perhaps  he  understood  the  direction  to  mean  simply, 
'wash  thine  eyes.'"  This  is  all  very  well;  but  it  shows 
how  greatly  these  prepositions  ek  and  iv  are  controlled  by 
the  conception  of  the  translator.  The  angel  is  sent  down 
into  the  pool  under  no  better  authority  than  h;  while  the 
blind  man  is  arrested  at  the  pool,  although  he  carries  ek  as 
his  passport.  Dr.  Carson  however  insists,  that  "  he  was  to 
go  into  the  pool  that  he  might  wash;  literally  '  wash  into  the 


896  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

pool.'  The  blind  man  might  as  well  have  sent  to  the  pool 
for  water  to  wash  at  home,  as  to  take  the  water  out  of  the 
pool  and  wash"  (p.  300).  This  is  the  old  argument  for 
going  into  the  Jordan,  "  What  else  would  they  go  to  the 
river  for?"  "Judith  might  as  well  have  sprinkled  herself 
in  her  tent.  What  would  she  go  to  the  fountain  for  but  to 
go  into  it?" 

This  argumentation  however  does  not,  here,  commend 
itself  to  the  translators  of  the  Baptist  Bible,  as  they  allow  a 
man  to  go  "to"  a  pool  and  take  water  out  of  it  to  wash, 
without  sending  him  into  the  pool.  Carson  is  consistently 
wrong,  and  the  translators  are  inconsistently  right.  We  (I 
think  both  consistently  and  truly)  say,  that  the  blind  man 
went  to  the  pool  {dr  xoXuiifiiiOpav)  without  going  into  it ;  and 
that  Jesus  went  to  the  Jordan  {elq  ' lopddvrjv)  without  going 
into  it. 

Campbell  (John  5  :  2)  thinks,  that  "  xoluixfirjOpa  signifies 
more  than  the  icater  collected,  and  includes  the  covered  walks, 
and  all  that  had  been  built  for  the  accommodation  of  those 
that  came  thither.  In  this  extent  the  word  bath  is  familiarly 
used  by  ourselves."  It  seems  to  be  so  used  by  Epiphanius 
(I,  445),  who  says  of  the  Apostle  John,  ^}<Oev  elq  rd  }MUTp6v,  in- 
dicating only  his  coming  to  the  place  where  the  bath  was 
without  his  entering  into  the  water.  So  it  would  seem  that 
Siloam,  like  Jordan,  included  more  than  water.  In  Luke 
13  :  4,  we  read  of  the  tower  Iv  Idcudfj.  falling.  This  tower 
certainly  was  not  in  the  water.  Stier  (V,  41)  says,  "  The 
description  iv  rw  Idwd;i  is  highly  obscure  in  consequence  of 
the  ^i',  but  probably  refers  to  a  district  or  field,  so-called 
from  the  brook." 

These  passages  are  sufificient  to  establish  the  position,  that 
where  ek  and  its  case  immediately  follow  a  verb  of  rest  pre- 
ceded by  and  connected  with  a  verb  of  motion,  both  verbs 
have  an  interest  in  the  phrase;  in  the  one  case  indicated  by 
the  form,  and  in  the  other  case  by  necessary  consequence. 

They  also  disprove  the  assumption,  that  such  phrase  is 
dependent  on  the  verb  of  rest,  and  is  to  be  expounded  by  it, 
to  the  disregard  of  the  verb  of  motion. 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  397 

Fourth  Assumption.  The  assumption,  that  /Sarrt'Cw  is  here 
used  in  a  primary  and  literal  sense  (while  elsewhere  it  is 
used  in  a  secondary  and  figurative  sense)  is  without  any 
adequate  support. 

It  is  in  proof,  both  by  Classic  and  inspired  writings,  that 
^a-KziZu)  is  largely  used  in  cases  where  there  is  no  physical 
envelopment.  .  Such  use,  therefore,  may  be  legitimately  ad- 
duced in  any  particular  case  as  a  possible  use,  and  must  be 
an  effectual  barrier  against  the  assumption  of  a  physical  use. 
Such  physical  use  must  be  proved.  But  no  proof  has  been 
adduced  in  the  present  case.  The  word  cannot  prove  it. 
"Jordan"  cannot  prove  it.  Elq  "lopddvrjv  cannot  prove  it. 
There  is  no  evidence  from  any  other  passage  of  the  primary, 
physical,  use  of  this  verb  in  a  single  instance  in  connection 
with  John's  baptism.  There  is  no  such  language-to  be  met 
with  as  baptism  "into  water."  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
reliable  evidence  adduced  to  disprove  the  position,  that 
water  in  ritual  baptism  is  a  symbol  agency,  not  an  envelop- 
ing element.  I  repeat  it  then,  that  it  is  the  sheerest  assump- 
tion which  attributes  to  ^amiZu)  m  this  passage  a  primary, 
physical,  meaning. 

Fifth  Assumption.  The  assumption,  that  ^aT.ziZ,m  here  means 
rfzp,  while  elsewhere  and  everywhere  it  has  no  such  meaning, 
is  pre-eminently  baseless. 

There  is  no  word  in  the  Greek  language  whose  meaning 
rests  on  evidence  more  clear  or  more  overwhelmino;  than 
that  meaning  assigned  to  [ia-Kri'^aj  which  makes  it  the  essential 
opposite  of  "  dip."  The  very  life  element  of  "  dip"  consists 
in  the  performance  of  an  evanescent  act,  putting  an  object 
within  and,  without  resting  in,  withdrawing  it  out  of  a  fluid 
element.  Now, /5a7rr£T«>  makes  demand  for  a  condition  of 
intusposition  without  regard  to  the  manner  of  its  accom- 
plishment and  without  reference  to  any  removal  out  of  it ; 
and  no  designed  momentary  introduction  and  removal  is 
possible  without  destroying  the  life  of  the  word.  Proof  of 
all  these  points  has  been  abundantly  given  in  Classic  and 
Judaic  Baptism.    It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  it  here.    I  only 


898  JOHANNIC    BAPTISM. 

call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  secondary  use  of  the  word 
is  as  clearly,  as  it  is  exclusively,  based  on  an  indefinitely 
prolonged  continuance  of  condition,  in  contradistinction 
from  one  which  is  momentary  and  evanescent.  Thus  we 
have  a  baptism  el^  mataO-riaiav  without  removal ;  e;'?  ut.vom  with- 
out removal;  etc  7r»/>v£ lav  without  removal.  I  call  attention 
to  this  usage  because  it  is  that  which  characterizes  the  bap- 
tism of  John.  The  baptism  preached  by  Jolm  is  a  baptism 
zlq  iis-avoim  without  removal ;  ^k  cupzavj  dimfiruo'^  without  re- 
moval. These  baptisms  are  intensely  real ;  thorough  and 
abiding  changes  in  the  condition  of  the  soul,  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  baptism  ritually  administered  was 
this  same  twain-one  baptism  symbolized,  as  to  essential  na- 
ture, by  pure  water  applied  to  the  body.  With  the  manner 
or  exteut'Of  applying  this  symbol  /3a:rT:Tw  has  no  more  to  do 
than  has  the  lost  Greek  koppa. 

As  Dr.  Carson  says  of  Mark  1:9,"  It  decides  the  con- 
troversy;" so  Dr.  Fuller  (p.  38)  says  of  2  Kings  5  :  14, 
"  Does  not  this  establish  the  meaning  of  the  word  ?  Can  a 
candid  man  longer  doubt  what  he  means?  Naaman  went 
down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  the  Jordan.  This 
is  admitted  to  mean  jSTaaman  dipped  himself  in  tlie  Jordan. 
Naaman  went  down  and  dipped.  It  was  in  this  very  river 
John  baptized.  Jesus  uses  the  same  word,  and  thus  com- 
mands the  very  same  act."  To  dip,  then,  is  the  claimed 
meaning.  But  to  prove  this  meaning  neither  Carson  nor 
Fuller  gives  one  syllable  of  real  evidence.  They  assume 
and  assert,  that  is  all.  How  their  views,  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  comports  with  that  of  an  old  Greek  writer,  may 
be  judged  from  a  passage  relating  to  this  baptism. 

Didymus  Alexandrinus  (700),  having  spoken  of  the  purg- 
ing of  the  world  from  sin  by  the  deluge,  and  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  Israelites  from  Egyptian  bondage  through  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  new  character  given  to 
the  fountain  l)y  salt  thrown  into  its  waters  by  the  prophet, 
as  types  of  the  blessing  and  salvation  secured  by  Christian 
baptism,  he  speaks  of  the  healing  of  Naaman  of  the  lepros}' 
as  a  type  of  the  cleansing  of  the  soul,  as,  also,  the  healing 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  399 

of  Bethesda ;  these  being  images  and  not  the  real  baptism, 
because  tliey  only  healed  diseases  of  the  body  and  not  the 
sins  of  the  soul.  The  power  to  do  this  last  was  not  imparted 
to  the  Avater  until  after  the  coming  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Spirit. 

He,  especially,  thinks,  that  the  sevenfold  use  of  the  water 
was  a  shadowing  forth,  by  the  perfect  number,  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

By  the  whole  passage,  preceding  and  succeeding  the  ref- 
erence to  ISTaaman's  baptism,  there  is  a  constant,  and  clear, 
and  exclusive  reference  to  the  power  of  baptism,  and  not 
to  the  mode  in  which  water  is  used.  Indeed,  the  mode  in 
which  the  water  was  used  was  different  in  almost  every  case 
to  which  he  refers.  In  them  all  there  was  the  presence  of 
a  powerful  influence.  Of  iSTaaman's  baptism  he  uses  this 
language : 

£lq  Tov  'lopddvYjv  iTzrdy.iq  xaTaflaKriaOr^vat  £7:£ij.(liev. 

"  He  sent  to  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized  seven  times,  ITaaman, 
the  Syrian  leper,  a  foreigner,  asking  to  be  healed  by  him;  that 
by  the  voice  of  the  Lord  upon  the  waters  his  disease  might  be 
removed  :  he  become  a  resemblance  of  the  cleansed  and  sanctified 
soul." 

The  first  point  to  which  I  would  call  attention  is  the  fact, 
that  £i?  rov  'Iop8d'^rjv  has  nothing  to  do,  as  to  its  form,  with 
xaraiSaTtriaOvivai.  Whatever  question  may  be  raised  as  to  Mark, 
none  can  be  raised  here ;  it  is  due  to  em/j-cpsv. 

The  second  remark  which  I  would  make  is  this:  The 
verb  is  in  a  compound  form ;  but  as  I  have  succeeded  but 
poorly  in  impressing  Baptists  with  the  impropriety  of  trans- 
lating, in  critical  writing,  a  simple  form  of  a  verb  (entering 
into  composition  with  a  variety  of  prepositions)  by  a  com- 
pound form,  and  they  insist  on  translating  the  simple  ^anziZut 
by  "im-merse,  zm-merge,  zm-bathe,  SM6-merge,  oi-cr-whelm," 
I  suppose  it  is  not  worth  while  to  refer  to  this  compound 
character. 

If  they  are  satisfied  with  it  as  it  stands,  I  will  raise  no 
objections,  but  will  be  well  content  to  allow  this  form  of  the 


400  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

word  to  speak  for  itself  and  see  what  it  lias  to  say  about  a 
"  dipping." 

Clirjsostom  (Horn.,  XIII)  uses  this  word  thus:  "As  a 
ship  filled  with  water  is  quickly  {xarafiaTzriZtTat)  baptized 
beneath  the  billows."     Does  this  sound  like  a  "  dipping?" 

Eustathius  (Hysmenias  and  Hysmene,  VII)  uses  it  thus : 
"ISTeptune  pours  down  upon  the  sea  all  his  fury,  and  seeks 
{xarai^a-riaat)  to  baptize  all  the  sliip  by  the  waves."  Is  this 
a  "  dipping?" 

Alex.  Aphrodisias  (1, 16)  furnishes  the  following  example: 
"  The  physical  force  flows  excessively  with  the  blood  deep 
into  the  body,  and  {xara^aizriZst.)  baptizes  the  natural  and 
vital  heat."  This  is  a  case  of  death  from  fright.  Does  it 
look  like  a  "  dipping?" 

And  again  (1, 17):  "  The  quantity  of  the  wine  (xaTaiSanrif^si) 
baptizes  the  physical  and  vital  power."  This  is  a  case  of 
death  from  excessive  wine-drinking.     Is  it  a  "  dipping?" 

These  are  all  the  instances,  of  a  physical  character,  of  the 
use  of  this  word,  which  are  now  before  me. 

Some  one  may  be  tempted  to  ask,  in  view  of  the  character 
of  these  quotations,  "  Do  you  believe,  or  do  you  imagine 
that  Didymus  believed,  that  Naaman  was  sunk  to  the  bottom 
of  the  Jordan  and  lies  there  to  this  day,  like  those  ships 
sunk  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea?  or.  Do  you  believe  that  he 
was  killed  at  the  Jordan  like  those  wretches  who  died  bap- 
tized by  blood,  and  by  wine?"  To  such  inquiries  I  answer 
very  promptly  in  the  negative.  If  any  one  should  think  it 
worth  while  to  ask,  "  Do  you  think  xarajSaTrrH^aj  means  to 
dip?"  I  answer,  No;  nor  do  I  expect  to  make  much  prog- 
ress toward  such  faith  until  my  ears  shall  have  attained  a 
very  sensible  elongation.  If  it  should  be  farther  asked, 
"  What  is  to  be  done  in  the  case  ?  Didymus  applies  a  word, 
which  by  its  usage  expresses  utter  destruction,  to  a  case  in 
which  there  is  no  such  destruction.  What  is  to  be  done 
with  the  word  ?  "  I  answer,  AVhatever  is  done  with  it,  we 
must  not  attach  to  it  an}'  such  meaning  as  will  be  so  ab- 
surdly variant  from  its  established  character  as  to  make  us 
a  laughing-stock  throughout  the  world  of  letters. 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  401 

Let  ns  inquire  for  a  secondary  use  of  the  word  in  which 
features  more  in  harmony  with  the  case  in  hand  may  be 
found. 

Try  the  following  passages: 

Origen  (John  11:45)  speaks  of  certain  persons  "who  (y.ara. 
l3ei3a7TTca!J.ivwv)  were  thoroughly  baptized  b}^  wickedness."  He 
speaks  of  those  who  are  in  a  condition  most  profoundly  dis- 
playing the  influence  of  sin,  even  as  a  mass  of  putrid  death. 

Basil  (XIV,  7):  "Wine  {xaralSanri^ec)  thoroughly  baptizes 
the  reason  and  the  understanding."  He  represents  the 
drunkard  as  under  an  influence  which  places  him  in  a  con- 
dition  of  greater  peril  than  a  ship  at  sea  without  a  pilot. 

Alciphron  (II,  3):  "Life  to  me  {y-ara^aTzriffOy^ffsTai)  will  be 
thoroughly  baptized."  He  is  speaking  of  a  condition  of 
things  the  influence  from  wliich  will  issue  in  the  loss  of  life. 

Eustathius  (VI):  "My  whole  mind  [xaraPaTzztaOsii;')  was 
thoroughly  baptized  by  the  woe."  Here  is  a  condition  of 
profound  influence  inducing  anguish  of  soul. 

Again  (Book  VII) :  "  My  soul  {xaTe^dTzziaaq)  thou  didst 
thoroughly  baptize  with  seas  of  wailings."  A  condition 
resultant  from  the  profoundest  influence. 

Achilles  Tatius  (1,3):  "Astounds  the  soul,  befalling  it 
suddenly,  and  (xarefidTZTKTs)  thoroughly  baptizes  it."  A  case 
of^  powerful  and  controlling  influence. 

Again  (Book  II,  31) :  "  Whom,  with  the  same  drug  {y.ara- 
y5anT£'<7a?),  having  thoroughly  baptized."  Here  is  a  condition 
resultant  from  an  all-controlling  opiate  influence. 

In  all  of  these  cases  the  preposition  (^arri),  in  composition, 
gives  intensity  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 

These  passages  present  a  usage  which,  I  will  not  say  with 
Carson  "  [my  child  can  understand,"  but  which  I  submit  to 
men  of  culture  and  ask,  Whether  there  is  not  both  a  wide 
difference  between  these  two  classes  of  passages  and,  at 
the  same  time,  an  obvious  and  inseparable  connection  ?  Do 
they  not  difl'er,  in  that  the  former  passages  exhibit  an  en- 
compassing physical  element,  while  in  the  latter  there  is 
none  ?  Do  they  not  agree,  in  that  both  exhibit  a  condition 
of  influence  of  the  profoundest  character;  the  one  effected 

26 


402  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

through  envelopment  unlimitedly  prolonged,  the  other  by 
controlling  influence  not  operating  through  envelopnient  ? 
This  exemplifies  the  ordinary  development  of  language. 

It  should  be  noted,  that  the  influences  operative  in  these 
zara-baptisms  are  varied  in  their  character,  while  all  have,  in 
common,  intense  and  controlling  power  over  condition. 

And  now  the  question  comes  up.  Does  this  new  usage 
throw  any  light  upon  the  word,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, which  was  so  impracticable  under  the  usage  first 
developed?  And  this  leads  us  to  inquire.  Is  there  any 
powerful  influence  operating  in  the  case  of  ISTaaman  ?  And 
the  answer  comes  promptly.  That  is  the  very  feature  of 
the  case.  There  is  influence  operating  as  powerful  as  that 
of  Jehovah,  "whose  voice,"  says  Didymus,  "is  upon  the 
waters."  Is  there  any  change  of  condition,  not  evanescent 
but  abiding,  effected  by  that  influence?  Leprous  flesh  is 
made  as  fresh  and  healthful  as  that  of  a  little  child;  and 
that  changed  condition  lasts  through  all  after  life. 

What  now  becomes  of  the  "dipping"  (absurdly  contra- 
dictory to  the  meaning  of  the  word)  so  vauntingly  intro- 
duced b}'  Fuller  as  the  result  of  demonstration  ?  And  what 
becomes  of  the  assumption  asserted  into  Mark  1:9? 

If  any  one  should  stumble  at  the  Hebrew  word  used  to 
denote  what  was  done  by  Naaman  at  the  Jordan,  they 
stumble  at  a  shadow.  This  word  (^Dp),  which  expresses 
what  was  done,  differs  as  much  from  the  Hebrew  word 
(t*ni),  used  by  the  prophet  in  commanding  what  was  to  be 
done,  as  the  Greek  word  differs  from  it.  And  if  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translators  saw  proper  to  represent  in  their  transla- 
tion what  the  prophet  commanded  to  be  done,  rather  than 
that  which  ISTaaman  did,  is  such  freedom  unpardonable  or 
extraordinar}' ?  Is  it  not  precisely  that  freedom  which  the 
inspired  writer  himself  has  exercised? 

In  view  of  the  whole  usage  of  jSarrO^w  primarj-  and  sec- 
ondary, and  in  view  of  this  special,  double  usage  of  xara- 
ftaTiriXoi^  we  adopt,  with  a  single  variation,  the  language  of 
Dr.  Conant:  "The  idea  of  a  total  submergence  lies  at  the 
basis  of  these  metaphorical  uses.     Anything  short  of  this, 


BAPTISM    OF   JESUS.  403 

such  as  the  mere  dipping  of  an  object,  viewed  as  the  ground 
of  these  metaphorical  senses,  would  be  simply  absurd." 

The  assumption  of  a  dipping  in  Mark  1  :  9  must  be  dis- 
missed. A  dipping  has  no  more  mastery  over  the  usage  of 
^ar.Tilu)  than  has  sprinkling  or  pouring.  And  while  dipping 
and  pouring  may  effect,  as  agencies,  baptisms  of  influence 
and  of  symbol,  all  who  take  a  dipping  for  a  baptism  have  no 
baptism.  They  have  clutched  at  a  shadow  and  have  lost  the 
reality. 

Sixth  Assumption.  The  assumption,  that  Mark  makes  an 
essentially  different  statement  from  that  made  b}^  Matthew 
respecting  this  same  transaction,  is  without  just  foundation. 

That  one  Evangelist  may  add  to  or  take  from  the  narra- 
tive of  the  same  transaction,  as  given  by  another  Evangelist, 
is  undoubtedly  true.  Addition  or  subtraction  may  affect 
the  completeness  of  a  narrative,  but  does  not  necessarily 
work  any  change  in  the  facts  themselves.  Our  objection  is, 
that  the  interpretation  of  the  theory  makes  Mark  state  a 
fact  which  Matthew  confessedly  does  not  state,  and  in  doing 
so  converts  "Jordan  "  into  water,  while  Matthew  confessedly 
uses  that  term  to  denote  not  water  but  local it}^;  and,  still 
farther,  makes  this  change  to  give  water  as  the  regimen  of 
ek,  which,  by  confession,  it  has  not  in  Matthew,  or  any- 
where else,  in  the  whole  history  of  John's  baptism,  nor  can 
have  (with  Classic  usage)  without  destruction  of  life. 

And  all  this  is  done,  when  the  language  of  Mark  may  be 
fairly  interpreted  without  deviating  in  the  least  degree  from 
the  statement  of  Matthew.  Matthew  states  with  a  distinct- 
ness which  admits  of  no  denial,  that  Jesus  came  from  Gali- 
lee and  arrived  at  (upon  ^m)  the  Jordan.  lie  does  not  set 
before  us  the  journey,  but  exhibits  its  termination  by  the 
arrival  at  Jordan.  Mark  exhibits  the  journey  more  in  tran- 
situ, as  setting  out  from  Galilee  and  tending  toward  the  Jor- 
dan, to  which  point  it  attains.  More  than  this  the  language 
of  Mark  does  not,  by  any  necessity,  express;  while  the  re- 
lation of  terms  claimed  by  the  theory  gives  an  impossible, 
destructive  meaning.     This  sixth  assumption  must  perish. 


404  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

While  it  may  be  true,  that  "  Mark  1 :  9  does  itself  decide 
the  controversy,"  that  decision  is  a  lightning  stroke  which 
smites  the  theory  and  leaves  it  a  monumental  wreck. 

Patristic  Writers. 

Jerome  in  translating  Matt.  3  :  13  adopts  rather  the  form 
of  Mark  than  of  Matthew  :  "  Tunc  venit  Jesus  a  Galilsea  in 
Jordam  ad  Joannem." 

Greo'Ory  Th.,  '■''  r.apayiveTat.  aito  rr^q  FaXaXaiaq  ei>  rov  ^lopdavr^v  Tzpoq 

rdv  'I(adw-^v,  '  Jesus  comes  imto  the  Jordan'  to  John." 

If  we  take  this  language  of  Greg.  Thaum.  in  connection 
with  Mark  1 :  9,  we  have  the  same  varied  form  of  expression 
as  is  exhibited  in  John  9  :  7  and  11 :  "Jesus  comes  {ek)  unto 
the  Jordan  to  be  baptized" — and  "Jesus  comes  to  be  bcq)- 
tized  [ek]  at  the  Jordan ; "  "  The  blind  man  goes  {tk)  unto  the 
pool  to  wash " — and  "  The  blind  man  goes  to  \oash  {ek)  at 
the  pool."  Both  Jerome  and  Gregory  dissolve  the  imagined 
relation  between  ek  'lopddvjjv  and  ^ar.TiZio. 

Mode  of  Baptism. 

While  the  Scriptures  preserve  an  absolute  silence  in  rela- 
tion to  any  forms  of  action  entering  into  the  administration 
of  ritual  baptism,  there  are  statements  made  by  Patristic 
writers  in  referring  to  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which, 
while  without  authority,  are  not  without  interest. 

Hippolytus  (X,  856)  says,  h.hvtv  rijv  xecpakrjv  avToo  ^aTzriffO^vat 

oKo  'Itudvvou,  "  he  bowed  his  liead  to  be  baptized  by  John." 

The  bowing  of  the  head  to  receive  the  symbol  water  of 
baptism  is  the  universal  practice  of  all  persons  except  among 
Baptists.  Hippolytus  says,  the  manner  in  whicli  Jesus  was 
baptized  has  no  counterpart  in  the  theory.  Jesus  "bowed  his 
head  "'  himself;  it  was  not  pressed  down  nor  dipped  by  John. 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus  (X,  1184-8)  gives  quite  an  ex- 
tended description  of  the  interview  between  John  and  Jesus 
and  the  subsequent  baptism.    John  is  represented  as  saying: 

"  How  shall  I  touch  thj'-  undcfilod  head  ?  How  shall  I  stretch 
out  my  right  hand  over  thee  who  hast  stretched  out  the  heavens 


BAPTISM   OF   JESUS.  405 

as  a  curtain  and  established  the  eai'th  upon  the  waters?  How- 
shall  I  stretch  out  my  servile  fingers  over  thy  divine  head? 
How  shall  I  wash  the  spotless  and  the  sinless?  How  shall  I 
enlighten  the  light?  How  shall  I  offer  prayer  for  thee  who 
dost  receive  the  prayers  of  those  who  know  thee  not  ? 

"In  baptizing  others  I  baptize  into  thy  name  that  they  may 
believe  upon  thee  coming  with  glory;  baptizing  thee  of  whom 
shall  I  make  mention  ?  Into  whose  name  shall  I  baptize  thee? 
Into  the  name  of  the  Father?  But  thou  hast  all  the  Father  in 
thyself,  and  thou  art  all  in  the  Father.  Or,  into  the  name  of 
the  Son  ?  But  there  is  no  other  beside  thee,  by  nature,  the  Son 
of  God.  Or,  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  But  he  is  in 
everything  united  with  thee,  as  of  the  same  nature  with  thee, 
and  of  the  same  will,  and  of  the  same  mind,  and  of  the  same 
power,  and  of  the  same  honor,  and  with  thee  receives  worship 
from  all.  Baptize,  therefore,  if  thou  wilt,  O  Lord,  baptize  me 
the  Baptist.  Make  me,  whom  thou  hast  caused  to  be  born,  to  be 
born  again.  Stretch  out  thy  dread  right  hand  which  thou  hast 
prepared  for  thyself,  and  crown  by  thy  touch  my  head,  that 
forerunner  of  thy  kingdom,  and  crowned  like  a  forerunner,  I 
may  preach  to  sinners,  crying  unto  them:  'Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world.' "  .  .  .  . 

Jesus  is  represented  as  answering : 

"  It  is  necessary  that  I  should,  now,  be  baptized  with  this 
baptism,  and,  hereafter,  confer  upon  all  men  the  baptism  of  the 
Trinity.  Lend  me  thy  right  hand,  O  Baptist,  for  the  present 
administration  ....  Take  hold  of  my  head  which  the  Seraphim 
worship.  Baptize  me,  who  am  about  to  baptize  them  that  be- 
lieve ((?£'  S5aroc,  xai  IIveuixaTot;^  xai  nopor;)  by  water,  and  Spirit,  and 
fire;  {Man)  by  water,  which  is  able  to  wash  awaj'  the  filth  of 
sin ;  (Ihsu/iart)  by  Spirit,  which  is  able  to  make  the  earthy  spir- 
itual ;  (nupl)  by  fire,  consuming,  by  nature,  the  thorns  of  trans- 
gressions. The  Baptist  having  heard  these  things,  stretching 
out  his  trembling  right  hand,  baptized  the  Lord." 

Thi&  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
shows  a  baptism  administered  after  a  very  different  fashion 
from  the  baptism  by  Baptists  of  the  present  day.  They 
never  baptize  by  stretching  out  the  right  hand  over  the 
head  of  the  baptized.     All  others  do,  always,  thus  baptize. 


406  JOHANNIC   BAPTISM. 

We  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  "  the  act  of  baptism,"  "  the 
act  commanded."  Was  the  act  performed  by  John's  out- 
stretched, trembling  right  hand,  "the  act  commanded?" 
If  so,  what  was  the  act? 

But  again,  this  narrative  bears  throughout  evidence  that 
the  baptism  did  not  consist  in  the  manner  of  using  the 
water,  but  in  the  effect  produced  by  it  as  an  instrumental 
means.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  language  of  the  Saviour, 
who  declares  that  his  baptism  is  St'  uSa-o^^  y.a\  Ihsofiaro^,  xai 
■nupcx;^  where  agency  is  unmistakable.  That  John  did  not 
regard  dipping  into  water  baptism  is  shown  by  his  inquiry, 
"Jn^o  whose  name  shall  I  baptize  thee?"  Gregory  seems  to 
have  thought  that  John  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  in  which  he  was  mistaken,  for  John  "  baptized  into 
repentance,"  but  it  shows  that  this  writer  did  not  regard 
water  dipping  as  baptism. 

We  may  also  learn,  that  baptism  into  repentance,  &c.,  im- 
j)orted  a  thorough  change  in  the  condition  of  the  baptized 
person  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  repentance,  &:c., 
from  John's  objection  to  the  result  of  a  baptism  "  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  or  of  the  Son,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost;" 
he  v/as  alheady  in  a  condition  perfectly  conformed  to  these  divine 
Persons,  and,  therefon-e,  a  baptism  "into  them"  was  an  un- 
meaning and  supererogatory  service.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  iv  Ilvevfj.aTc  'Ayuo,  "of  the  Same  nature,  will,  mind,  power," 
and  so  baptizes  cv  nvtoimn  'Aytoj^  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

From  whatever  standpoint  we  look  at  the  theory  all  sub- 
stance of  truth  is  lacking. 

We  have  now  considered  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  in  re- 
lation to  the  place  of  its  occurrence  and  the  phraseology  in 
which  it  is  expressed.  Few  I  think  will  hesitate  to  acknowl- 
edge, that  the  idea  of  Mark  1  :  9  "settling  the  controversy 
and  determining  a  dipping  into  Jordan,"  is  but  a  ])leasant 
dream  of  the  theorists  dispelled  by  a  stricter  investigation. 

The  baptism  received  by  Christ  and  the  execution  of 
its  amazing  responsibilities  constitute  the  groundwork  of 
Christian  baptism.  This  will  form  the  subject-nuitter  of 
additional  inquiry,  and  conclude  our  investigation. 


SUMMARY. 


THE  BAPTISM  PEEACHED  AND  THE  BAPTISM 
ADMINISTEEED. 

The  Baptism  which  John  preached  and  the  Baptism  which 
John  administered  were  one  and  the  same  baptism.  John 
preached  the  imperative  necessity  for  a  thorough  change  in  the 
condition  of  the  soul  manifested  by  godly  repentance  and  issu- 
ing in  the  full  remission  of  sin  through  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world;"  which  changed  condition  of 
the  soul  was  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  baptism  of  the 
soul  which  was  set  forth  by  words  in  the  preaching  was  identi- 
cally the  same  baptism  which  was  set  forth  by  water  in  the  rite. 
The  purification  of  the  soul  was  always  eifected,  as  a  fact,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;  and  the  purification  of  the  soul  was  always 
exhibited,  as  a  necessity,  by  the  pure  symbol.  The  agencies 
differed  infinitely;  the  baptism  was  one  absolutely — effected  m 
the  one  case,  symbolized  in  the  other. 

Matthew's  "Eepent  !"  and  Mark's  and  liuke's '^  Baptisyn  of 
repentance  into  the  remission  op  sins,"  and  John's  "  Behold  ! 
the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  have 
all  alike  the  same  amount  of  water  in  them;  that  is  to  saj'-,  just 
as  much  as  may  be  found  in  the  burned  out  craters  of  the  moon. 
The  verb  [io-riZut  and  the  noun  ftdnrta/ia,  as  used  in  the  history 
of  John's  baptism,  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  quantit}^  or  the 
manner  of  using  the  water  employed  in  his  symbol  rite,  than 
has  the  multiplication  table  to  do  with  the  amount  or  the  man- 
ner of  using  Eothschild's  wealth.  Let  these  words  mean  what 
they  may,  they  have  no  more  control,  in  the  relations  in  which 
they  stand,  over  the  use  of  the  water,  than  a  sleeping  infant  has 
over  the  earth's  diurnal  revolution. 

(407) 


408  SUMMARY. 

There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  conjoining  6  jSaTtTcffrije;  with 
a  physical  complementary  element.  The  related  term  6  jSaTzzTj^: 
presents  no  evidence,  in  its  usage,  of  meaning  "  the  dipper." 
Merger,  the  corresponding  derivative  from  mergo  (through 
merge),  presents  in  its  usage  the  most  absolute  evidence  of  di- 
vorce from  ph}' sical  relations.  In  evidence  see  the  following : 
Wharton's  Law  Lexicon,  London;  Article  Merger:  "Merger 
(Latin  7nergo,  to  drown).  The  doctrine  o^ Merger  is  simply  this: 
that  if  two  estates  in  realty  vest  in  the  same  person  in  the 
same  right,  and  without  any  other  estate  intermediate  between 

them,  the  lesser  is  sunk  or  destroyed  in  the  greater Thus 

if  an  estate  for  life,  and  a  greater  estate  immediately  expectant 

on  it,  meet  in  the  same  person,  the  first  estate  is  'merged 

If  the  wife  be  tenant  for  life,  and  the  reversion  in  fee  be  con- 
veyed to  husband  and  wife,  the  estate  for  life  is  merged;  yet  the 
wife  surviving  may  revive  it  by  expressing  her  dissent  to  the 

conveyance Where  any  person  having  an  estate  capable 

of  merger Owners  of  both  lands  and  tithes,  even  tenants 

for  life,  are  empowered  to  merge  tithes  in  the  land If  the 

lessee  make  the  freeholder  his  executor  the  term  will  not  merge. 
....  It   is   doubtful  when   the   second  term  is  in  remainder, 

whether  a  merger  will  take  place If  a  trust  and  legal  estate 

unite  in  the  same  person,  the  former  generally  speaking  becomes 
merged  or  extinguished.  Equity  will  in  certain  cases  relieve 
against  a  legal  merger.  The  title  of  extinguishment  differs  from 
that  of  merger  in  being  applicable  to  a  charge  or  right  instead 
of  a  preceding  estate." 

Burrill's  Law  Dictionary,  New  York:  Article  "Merger 
(from  French  merger,  to  drown;  from  Latin  mergere,  to  plunge). 
The  drowning,  sinking,  absorption,  or  extinguishment  of  one 
estate  in  another.  The  extinguishment  by  act  of  law  of  one  es- 
tate in  another.  The  less  is  immediately  annihilated,  or  in  the 
law  phrase  is  said  to  be  merge]5,  that  is,  sunk  or  drowned  in 
the  greater.     The  terra  of  years  is  merged  in  the  inheritance, 

and  shall  never  exist  any  more An  engagement  by  simple 

conti-act  is  merged  in  a  deed  contract  (the  engagement  and  the 
parties  being  the  same),  and  becomes  totally  extinguished." 

This  reference  to  the  use  of  "  Merger,"  as  a  law  term,  is  in 
accordance  with  the  counsel  of  Bui-ke  (Preface  to  Sublime  and 


BAHTISTHS.  409 

Beautiful):  "We  ought  to  compare  our  subject  with  things  of  a 
similar  nature,  and  even  with  things  of  a  contrary  nature ;  for 
discoveries  may  be,  and  often  are,  made  by  the  conti-ast,  which 
would  escape  us  on  the  single  view.  The  greater  number  of 
comparisons  we  make,  the  more  general  and  the  more  certain 
our  knowledge  is  likely  to  prove,  as  built  upon  a  more  perfect 
and  extensive  induction/' 

Nothing  could  more  fully  vindicate  the  view  of  fianri^u)  and 
mergo  as  prescribed  in  Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism,  or  more  ab- 
solutely extinguish  the  view  of  the  theory,  than  this  law  usage 
of  MERGER.  It  has  been  shown  by  a  foi'ce  of  evidence  which  has 
not  been  attempted  to  be  gainsaid,  that  this  Greek  and  this 
Latin  word  are  as  nearly  correspondent  in  radical  and  derived 
meanings  as  any  two  words  in  different  languages  could  well  be. 
And  both  these  words  have  been  shown  to  be  the  very  opposites, 
in  point  of  power,  to  ftdTzrw,  tingo,  dip;  because  these  latter  words 
do  not  allow  their  object  to  abide  within  the  enveloping  element, 
while  the  former  never  makes  pi'ovision  for  its  withdrawal. 
Both  the  London  and  the  New  York  lexicographers  recognize 
this  distinction  when  they  derive  "merger"  from  the  Latin 
"mergo  to  droivji,"  and  from  the  French  "merger  to  drown." 
Did  any  one  ever  define  tingo,  or  dip,  by  drown  P  Would  it  be 
possible  to  substitute  dipper  for  "merger"  and  make  anything 
but  nonsense  ?  Try  it  on  the  definition  as  given  by  Burrill — 
'* (Merger  =)  Dipper:  The  drowning,  sinking,  absorption,  or  ex- 
tiyiguishment  of  one  estate  in  another."  Could  definition  be  the 
more  absolute  opposite  of  a  defined  word  than  in  this  case? 

But  in  farther  contrast,  observe  the  usage  in  connection  with 
this  matter  of  estates  of  the  word  dip : 

»'  Put  out  the  principal  in  trusty  hands, 
Live  on  the  use;  and  never  dip  thy  lands." — Dryden. 

"  Lord  T had  dipped  so  deeply  into  his  property." — Mrs.  Sherwood. 

By  a  "merger"  an  estate  has  an  addition  made  to  it,  and  it 
becomes  enhanced  in  value  by  the  new  element  incorporated  in 
it;  while  by  a  dipper  (  =  "a  mortgage"),  something  is  subtracted 
from  an  estate  and  by  this  loss  it  becomes  diminished  in  value. 
Now,  what  would  be  thought  of  any  one  that  should  insist  upon 
confounding  and  interchanging  these  words,  substituting  at  will 
dipping  for  "merger"  and  "merger"  for  dipping?     Would  the 


410  SUMMARY. 

judges  of  any  court  tolerate  such  lawlessness  in  any  plea  that 
might  be  made  before  them  ?  Is  it  any  more  tolerable  out  of 
the  court-room  and  in  interpreting  the  word  and  law  of  God? 

But  this  is  what  the  friends  of  the  theory  insist  upon.  They 
insist  in  the  name  of  a  mistaken  philology,  that  6  /JaTrriffTi^c  shall 
mean  "Dipper,"  and  then  to  cover  up  their  error,  they  farther 
insist  upon  spelling  "Dipper"  after  the  remarkable  fashion, 
I-m-m-e-r-s-e-r  I  And  when  they  are  pressed  with  the  undeni- 
able point,  that  immerse  does  not  take  out  what  it  puts  in,  they 
reply,  "  that  they  are  excusable  for  an  utter  reversal  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  used  b}^  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  ground, 
that  God  did  not  mean  to  drown  the  disciples;"  quietly  assum- 
ing the  absolute  error,  that  God  meant  that  the  disciples  should 
be  put  into  the  water. 

This  law  usage  of"  merger"  farther  claims  attention  because 
it  exhibits  an  appropriated  use  of  the  word,  and  that  outside  of 
any  physical  application.  As  "  merger"  in  law  has  nothing  to 
do  with  liquids  or  physics  of  any  kind,  so  ^anTiari-jq  in  religion 
has  nothing  to  do  with  water  in  any  form  or  measure.  Let  not 
6  jSa7iriffT7j(;  have  his  "long  coat"  trimmed  down  to  the  "short 
coat"  of  6  ftdizTqq  until  the  use  of  the  shears  can  claim  "by 
authority  "  from  some  accredited  quarter.  Let  not  6  ^a-jzriarrjq 
be  eviscerated  of  all  power  and  life  in  order  to  save  a  hopelessly 
imperilled  theory.  Let  not  a  union  between  6  iSanTttrrij';  and 
water  be  attempted  while  l^he  laws  of  language  and  the  words 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  unitedly  cry — We  forbid.' 

Usage  shows  a  strict  and  exclusive  appropriation  growing 
out  of  religious  ceremonial  purifications,  and  the  teaching  of  a 
higher  spiritual  purification.  And  therefore  it  is,  that  John  6 
^aTtrtarr^q  is  and  can  only  be,  John  the  Purifier. 

Tlie  only  use  of  this  term,  6  flanrtarrjq^  as  applied  to  any  other 
than  to  John,  confirms  the  position  that  it  has  no  usage  with 
physical  adjuncts.  The  passage  referred  to  is  in  Ambrose,  II, 
1227,  "Ergo  veniet  Baptista  Magnus."  No  one  ever  imagined 
that  the  title,  "the  Great  Baptist,"  as  applied  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  carried  any  water  with  it.  And  any  one  who  imagines 
that  the  title,  "  the  Baptist,"  as  applied  to  John,  cai-ries  water 
with  it,  indulges  his  imagination  without  warrant  from  one 
syllable  of  Scripture.  If  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  "  the  Great 
Purifier,"  his  Forerunner  was  the  preacher  of  that  great  puri- 
fication and  ritually  a  symbol  "Purifier."    This  word  as  applied 


BAHTISMA.  411 

to  John  is  always  used  absolutely,  and  so  indicates  a  Jewish 
origin;  as  in  distinctively  Jewish  usage  the  Greek  verb  and  its 
derivatives  are  always  used  absolutely,  indicating  long  and 
common  usage. 

Bdnriff[xa. 

In  the  history  of  John's  baptism  the  words  j3a7ZTifffx6<;  and 
j3d7ZTi(Tt(;,  which  were  in  Jewish  use  and  expressive  of  the  act  of 
the  verb,  were  rejected,  and  a  new  word,  ^dirTiaiia,  expressive  of 
state  or  condition,  is  introduced.  The  new  word  has  never  any 
complementar}^  relation  with  water.  The  following  are  the  only 
relations  in  which  it  occurs  by  which  its  natui'c  may  be  deter- 
mined :  1.  [idiTTtfftj.a  duToo.  2.  l3d7:Tt<7p.a  ^Iwawou.  3.  ^ditriaiia  kxrjpoffffe, 
4.  jSd-TtfT!J.a  psravoiaq  t/.r^puaae.  5.  ^ditrKjpa  pezavoiaq  ifianriffs.  6. 
iSdnziffpa  p.STa-voia'Z  e<<r  afeatv  ap.aprnov  y.ripuffffiuv.  In  all  these  limiting 
and  explanatorj^  adjuncts  water  fails  to  make  an  appearance. 
And  so  long  as  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  and  of  Malachi,  and  of 
Zacharias,  shall  remain  ;  and  so  long  as  the  histories  of  Matthew, 
and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  shall  live;  and  so  long  as  re- 
pentance and  the  remission  of  sins  shall  find  their  motive  and 
their  end  in  the  Lamb  of  God ;  so  long  must  water  be  rejected 
as  a  receiving  element  in  the  jSd'Tzrcffpa  of  John. 

^Ev  and  Elq. 

The  New  Testament  usage  of  iv  and  ej'c  on  the  subject  of 
baptism  is  sufficient  to  extinguish  the  theory  of  a  water  dip- 
ping. The  theory  in  its  interpretation  of  these  prepositions 
does  nothing  but  confound  what  the  Holy  Spirit  has  made  dis- 
criminatingly diverse.  It  rejects  in  inspired  writings  laws  of 
language  which  had  been  accepted  and  respected  in  the  writings 
of  Judaism  and  Heathenism.  The  only  apology  for  this  must 
be  found  in  the  fact,  that  otherwise  the  theory  would  perish  to 
be  remembered  only  by  its  remarkable  expletive  vocabulary, 
and  its  historic  errors  as  to  the  communion  of  saints  and  the 
constitution  of  the  church  of  God.  The  following  quotations  will 
show,  at  a  glance,  the  nature  of  this  discriminating  difl'erence : 

Place  in  which. 
h  kpTipu)  in  the  Wilderness. 


,        {  h  ipTjpM  in  the  Wildernes 
/iaTTTtCt^v  I  ,^  ^i,,pi^^^  ill  the  Jordan. 


412  SUMMARY. 

Means  by  which. 

a      r     ^  ^^  Hvenixazi  'Ay(u)  b}^  the  Holy  Ghost  (really). 
panuia,',  |  ^^^  o^^^^  (Matt.j,  udarc  (Luke),  by  water  (symbolly). 

Verbal  element  into  which. 

o      'f     ^  £i"?  ij-sravoiav  into  repentance. 

jianri^cov  j  ^.^  ^^-^^^  djiapTiaJv  into  the  remission  of  sins. 

All  outside  of  the  theory  will,  I  think,  concur  in  the  judgment, 
that  the  usage  of  the  prepositions  relating  to  John's  baptism  is 
sufficient  of  itself  to  determine  this  long-pending  controversy, 
and  to  exclude  forever  the  idea  of  a  dipping  into  water. 

John  preached  a  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins  (  =  thorough 
purification  and  pardon),  effected  by  faith  in  the  Coming  One 
"the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world," 
through  repentance  wrought  in  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  John  ritually  administered  this  same  baptism  in  the  Wil- 
derness, in  the  Jordan  (locally),  by  water  (symbolly),  into  re- 
pentance, into  the  remission  of  sins  (verbal  element  expressive 
of  thorough  repentance  required,  and  thorough  remission  prom- 
ised). In  the  statement  of  this  preaching  and  of  this  adminis- 
tration there  never  was  a  more  absolute  conformit}^  to  the 
Classic  usage  of /JaTrntw  as  a  word  of  power  and  making  demand 
for  condition  thorough  and  indefinitely  prolonged  ;  there  never 
was  a  more  absolute  conformity  to  the  nature  and  power  of  iv 
(Classic  and  Hellenistic)  ivithin,  1.  As  within  a  bounded  space, 
€.  g.,  of  the  Wilderness,  of  the  banks  of  the  Jordan  ;  2.  As  in- 
vested with  power  (power  of  influence  being  concomitant  on 
withinness),  e.  g.,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  sjmibol  water;  there 
never  was  a  more  absolute  conformity  to  the  nature  and  power 
of  e^<r  passing  into,  as  expressive  of  a  thorough  change  of  condi- 
tion, e.  g.,  out  of  impenitence  into  penitence,  out  of  the  pollution 
of  sin  into  the  thorough  remission  of  sin  ;  and  there  never  was 
a  more  just  or  a  more  perfect  discrimination  in  the  associate 
use  of  these  prepositions  exhibited  in  any  writings  Heathen  or 
Christian.  And  on  the  other  hand,  never  was  the  nature  and 
power  of  a  word  more  utterly  misrepresented  than  by  the  theory 
in  making  jSaTzrH^u)  demand  a  dipping  or  a  temporary  covering; 
and  never  was  a  phrase  more  essentially  misinterpreted  than 
when  ^arai%u}  iv  is  made  to  carry  men  and  women  out  of  one 


BAHTISQ.  413 

element  into  another;  and  never  was  there  a  more  complete  in- 
version and  perversion  of  language  than  that  Avhich  makes 
lianrH^u}  h  dip  into  and  arrests  ^ar.ri'^u)  el<;  on  the  outside  of  its 
complementary  adjunct  by  "  unto." 

If  the  theory  can  live  after  pulling  down  upon  its  head  rocks 
like  these,  it  must  have  a  hold  on  life  even  beyond  that  which 
common  fame  attributes  to  ordinary  error. 

Banri'^iii. 
The  theory  has  grown  venerable  with  the  years  of  a  second 
or  third  centuiy  in  the  assumption  and  assertion,  that  (^anxiZu) 
is  a  modal  verb  expressive  of  a  definite  act.  This  position  has 
been  proclaimed  to  be  its  peculiar  glory.  All  rejecters  of  it 
were  declared  to  be  unfaithful  to  God.  We  insist  on  this  defini- 
tion being  sustained  by  proof  or  being  abandoned  with  confes- 
sion  of  error  and  wrong  done  to  the  people  of  God.  We  will 
again  present  the  view  of  the  theory  as  derived  from  a  new 
source ;  showing  that  we  have  given  a  true  representation  of  it. 
We  quote  from  Alexander  Campbell,  President  of  Bethany  Col- 
lege, as  contained  in  his  work  on  Christian  Baptism  (Bethany, 
Virginia,  1823),  pp.  116-130:  "Argument  1. — Ba-pto,  the  root 
of  Baptizo,  whence  the  adopted  words  baptize  and  baptism,  like 
all  other  radical  words  denoting  specific  action,  never  loses  its 
specific  sense  in  its  derivatives.  The  word  baptizo  is  restricted, 
circumscribed,  a  word  of  specification.  It  indicates  an  outward 
and  formal  action.  Baptism  is  a  positive  ordinance.  Positive 
precepts  indicate  some  exact  and  well-defined  action.  Circum- 
cision was  a  positive  institution.  It  enjoined  a  specific  act. 
Baj)tism  must  have  the  specific  action  to  be  performed,  implied, 
and  expressed  in  it.  Jesus  Christ  must  have  intended  some 
particular  action  to  be  performed  by  his  ministers,  and  it  follows 
that  he  did  select  such  a  word,  or  that  he  could  not  or  would 

not  do  it Follows  it  not,  then,  that  he  could,  that  he  would, 

find  such  a  word,  and  that  he  has  done  it — and  that  baptizo  is 
that  specific  word  ?  In  the  common  version  bapto  is  translated, 
both  in  its  simple  and  compound  form,  always  by  the  word  dip. 
Baptizo  indicates  a  specification,  and  consequently,  as  such,  can 
have  but  one  meaning.  It  is  a  word  indicating  specific  action 
and  specific  action  only.  Baptizo,  confessedl}^  a  derivative  from 
bapto,  derives  its  specific  meaning,  as  well  as  its  radical  and  im- 
mutable form,  from   that  word.     Baptismos,  baptisma,  baptisis, 


414  SUMMARY. 

baptistees,  baptomai,  baptisomni,  baptos,  baptisteerion,  bapha,  bapM- 
kos,  bapheis,  through  their  two  thousand  flexions  and  modifica- 
tions, retain  tlie  bap  and  as  uniformly  the  dip  represented  by  it. 
All  the  learned  admit  that  its  primary,  proper,  and  unfigurative 
meaning  is  to  dip.  All  allow  that  dip  is  the  primary  and  proper 
meaning  of  bapto;  and  as  it  is  incontrovertibly  certain  that  bap- 
tizo  is  derived  from  bapto,  and  therefore  inherits  the  proper 
meaning  of  bap,  which  is  dip,  then  is  it  not  irresistibly  evident 
that  baptizo  can  never  authorize  or  sanction  any  other  action 
than  dipping  or  immersion.  No  word  in  the  Greek  language 
has  been  more  rigidly  canvassed  and  more  accurately  traced 
than  baptizo,  and  none  more  satisfactorily  established.  Since 
Messrs.  Carson  and  Stuart's  essays  on  this  subject,  it  is  agreed 
among  the  learned  of  all  parties  that  bapto  and  baptizo  do  diflFer 
only  in  one  point,  not  formerly  observed  by  the  lexicographers 
themselves;  and  that  point  is,  that  Bapto  is  never  used  to  de- 
note THE  ordinance  OF  BaPTISM,  AND  BaPTIZO  NEVER  SIGNIFIES 

TO  DYE.  In  the  radical  and  proper  import,  it  is  abundantly 
evident  that  the}^  are  isodunai,  exactly  the  same  as  to  significa- 
tion." 

Such  is  a  condensed  statement,  in  his  own  words,  of  Alexander 
Campbell's  view  as  to  the  meaning  of  fiaTzrcUo.  It  is  the  absolute 
ditto  of  that  of  Alexander  Carson.  It  is  the  same  as  that  pre- 
sented by  all  Baptist  writers  in  theory.  It  is  a  view  of  the  word 
which  no  writer  in  argument  has  even  made  an  attempt  to  sus- 
tain. There  is  not  the  shadow  of  support  for  it  in  the  full  facts 
of  usage.  There  is  not  a  Greek  lexicographer  tliat  ever  lived 
who  defined  /?a7rr:'C">  as  expressing  "  specific  action  and  specific 
action  only."  And  if  it  be  true,  as  Campbell  says,  that  "  it  is 
ao"reed  among  the  learned  that  ^d-ro  and  ^a-ri'lio  differ  only  in 
one  point  (dyeing),  and  that  in  all  other  respects  they  are  ex- 
actly the  same  as  to  signification,"  then,  it  is  high  time  that 
some  of  the  unlearned  should  step  in  and  call  attention  to  the 
facts  in  the  usage  of  these  Avords.  No  soberminded  man  can 
look  at  these  facts  and  say,  that  they  indicate  these  words  to  be 
"  exactly  the  same  as  to  signification." 

Jewish  and  Johannic  Usage. 
The  Jewish  usage  of  this  Greek  verb,  together  with  its  deriv- 
atives, presents  a  very  marked  difference  when  compared  with 
the  usage  of  John.     Thus  we  meet  with  such  phrases  as  these: 


JEWISH   AND   JOHANNIC    USAGE.  415 

Ti(ppaq^  Ija-riaiovrai  arzo  dyopaq,  Su  ijSa-TiffOjj  -npo  rod  dpi(Tzou^  fia-Tiaiiia 
GU'>iv^ai^  l3d-r'.(n'^  d-d'Je'/.rr^v^  j3aTZ~t<Tfiou';  y.Xt'^uJv^  i3aT:zi<Ttw(q  ^lacpopoi'Z. 
These  phrases  show  an  absolute  use  of  the  word  which  in  the 
absence  of  a  delining  adjunct  requires  special  knowledge  of 
Jewish  thought  and  practice  for  its  interpretation.  To  a  Classic 
Greek  ignorant  of  Judaism  the  darkness  of  Egypt  would  not  be 
less  penetrable  than  the  thought  in  such  phrases  as — "  baptized 
from  the  dead,"  "baptized  in  the  camp,"  "  baptized  by  ashes," 
" baptized  from  the  market,"  "baptized  before  dinner,"  "come 
for  baptizing,"  "  acceptable  baptizing,"  "  baptizings  of  couches," 
"diverse  baptizings;"  but  to  the  Jew  there  was  no  darkness  in 
these  phrases;  ceremonial  purification  flashed  out  through  them 
all.  This  thought  had  been  thus  expressed  among  them  for  a 
hundred  years,  and  in  no  other  terms.  Long  use  had  worn 
away  explanatorj-  adjuncts  and  the  word  alone  expressed  the 
absorbed  meaning.  But  the  facts  are  far  otherwise  with  John's 
baptism.  The  phraseology  which  announced  this  baptism  had 
no  century  of  usage  to  tali  back  upon.  It  was  a  new  baptism. 
An  absolute  use  of  words  could  not  express  it.  Explanatory 
adjuncts  were  imperative.  John,  therefore,  does  not  say,  ' Eyia 
fiar.TiZuj  simply,  but  ^Eyiu  j3a--i'^u>  e  i  q  p.  £  r  av  o  i  a  v  ;  he  does  not 
preach  a  ^dTzriapa  simpl}",  but  a  fid-ztdiia  p  e  -  a  v  o  { a  <; ;  he  is  not 
satisfied  with  teaching  the  nature  of  the  baptism  by  tracing  it 
to  the  source  whence  it  proceeds,  but  gives  the  last  degree  of 
explicitness  which  language  allows  b}'  tracing  it  into  the  verbal 
element  within  which  it  terminates,  thus,  i3d-Tt.(Tpa  pzravuiaq  el? 
a(p  e  a  tv  a.  pa  pz  t.  (hv.  Such  phraseology  would  be  just  as  intel- 
ligible to  the  Classic  Greek  as  to  the  Jew.  And  the  Jew  needed 
such  explanatory  adjuncts  to  divorce  his  mind  from  his  old  bap- 
tism and  to  apprehend  the  new,  just  as  much  as  the  Classic 
Greek.  And  I  trust  the  friends  of  the  theory  will  not  long  stand 
aloof  from  those  who  accept  this  most  explicit  and  divinely 
authoritative  definition  of  John's  baptism,  frankly  confessing 
their  unhappy  error. 

Inasmuch  as  John  cannot  possibly  use  the  Greek  verb  and 
noun  in  their  acquired  Jewish  sense,  he  must  fall  back  on  the 
original  force  of  these  words  (and  even  form  a  new  word)  de- 
veloping a  specific  meaning  by  new  combinations  of  words. 
John  protects  himself  against  misinterpretation  b}^  constructing 
a  barrier  of  limitinp-  and  defininij;  words,  which  can  never  be 


416  SUMMARY. 

broken  down  oi*  rejected  without  trampling  under  foot  words 
spoken  by  inspired  men  "as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Classic,  Judaic,  and  Johannic  Usage. 

The  underlying  force  and  language  development  of  ^arizi'^u)  is 
identically  the  same,  in  principle,  with  Greeks,  and  Jews,  and 
John.  The  Greeks  use  the  word  first  in  physical  relations,  then 
in  ideal  relations,  and  finally  absolutely,  as  expressive  directly 
of  a  new  idea — to  make  drunk.  The  Jews  (Josephus  and  Philo) 
exhibit  a  like  ph3\sical,  ideal,  and  absolute  use  with  that  of  the 
Greeks.  While  Jewish  religious  writings,  inspired  and  unin- 
spired, show  a  national  appropriated  use  with  tbe  new  significa- 
tion— religious  ceremonial  purification.  John  never  uses  the  word 
for  the  development  of  its  force  in  any  physical  application;  nor 
does  he  use  it  in  the  national  appropriated  meaning,  for  he  did 
not  deal  with  "ceremonial  purifications;"  but  he  shows  a  per- 
fect mastery  of  the  radical  idea  of  the  word  by  its  use  in  new 
and  ideal  relations,  thereby  developing  the  truth  announced 
in  his  mission  with  the  greatest  possible  clearness  and  jDOwer. 
While  in  the  application  of  this  word  there  is  the  broadest  di- 
versity, and  as  a  consequence  the  outgrowth  of  a  diversity  in 
the  directly  expressed  meaning,  yet,  as  to  principle  in  the  use 
and  development  of  this  word  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  dif- 
ference whether  under  Heathenism,  Judaism,  or  Inspiration. 

John  and  the  Theory. 

The  theory  proffers  to  John  a  dipping  into  loater  as  his  bap- 
tism. The  son  of  Zacharias  will  not  own  it.  He  declai'es  that 
the  preaching  of  a  water  dipping  illy  becomes  "the  prophet  of 
the  Highest,  preparing  the  ways  of  the  Lord,  giving  knowledge 
of  salvation  unto  his  people  by  the  remission  of  their  sins" 
(Luke  1  ;  7(3,  77).  He  refuses  to  recognize  "  baptism  of  repent- 
ance" and  "  baptism  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  in  the  offspring 
of  the  theory — "  a  dipping  into  water  unto  repentance,  unto  the 
remission  of  sins."  Ho  declares  himself  to  be  an  utter  stranger 
to  any  baptism  made  up  of  a  momentary  introduction  into  and 
extraduction  out  of  water;  while  he  is  ready  to  administer  a 
symbol  ritual  baptism  b}-  applying  pure  water  to  those  wlio 
have  received  by  the  Holy  Ghost  that  soul  baptism  which  is 
symbolized  in  its  purifying  nature  by  the  ritual  water. 


CONCLUSION.  417 

Whether  the  friends  of  the  theory  will  receive  John's  teach- 
ing with  any  greater  docility  than  that  of  the  Angel  Gabriel,  or 
will  "  order  them  "  both  "  to  school/'  I  do  not  know ;  but  one 
thing  is  patent,  that  so  long  as  they  substitute  a  dipping  into 
water  for  the  divinely  appointed  symbolization  of  "  baptism 
into  REPENTANCE,"  "  into  the  remission  of  sins,"  they  have 
blotted  out  from  their  ritual  practice  the  handwriting  and  super- 
scription of  the  skies.  "Doctrine  of  man"  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  teaching  of  God.  A  human  service  has  usurped  the  ofl3.ce 
of  a  divine  ordinance.  While  grasping  in  the  wate?  after  a 
shadowed  substance,  letting  go  their  hold  on  the  reality,  they 
have  both  lost  the  substance  and  missed  the  shadow,  and  so  find 
themselves  without  any  baptism.  No  heathen  Greek  will  recog- 
nize a  dipping  as  a  baptism;  and  neither  John  nor  any  other 
inspired  writer  ever  taught  a  dipping  into  Water.  The  theory 
has  sold  its  birthright  for  a  dip  into  the  water. 


CONCLUSION. 


JoHANNic  Baptism  is  a  spiritual  condition  of  the  soul,  a 
BATITIIMA  "into  repentance,"  "into  the  remission  of  sins;" 
which  condition  of  repentance  and  of  remission  (like  every 
other  baptism)  has  no  sell-termination,  and  is  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.     This  is  Johannic  Baptism  in  its  reality. 

This  same  BAHTflMA  is  declared  by  word  and  exhibited  in 
symbol,  by  the  application  of  pure  water  to  the  person,  in  a 
ritual  ordinance.     This  is  Johannic  Baptism  in  its  shadow. 

The  manner  of  using  the  water  in  John's  ritual  baptism  is  not 
stated  by  any  word.  The  word  /SaTrrt'Cw,  as  used  in  Scripture,  has 
no  more  control  over  or  connection  with  the  manner  of  using 
this  water,  than  a  broken  arm  has  control  over  or  connection 
with  the  movement  of  the  solar  system. 

Dipping  or  mersing  "into  water"  is  phraseology  utterly  un- 
known to  John's  baptism,  "Baptism  into  repentance"  and 
"baptism  into  water"  are,  as  to  their  nature,  as  far  removed 
from  each  other  as  is  pole  from  pole.  The  first  of  these  is  the 
baptism  of  John;  the  second  (changed  to  a  dipping,  and  there- 
fore nullified  as  a  baptism)  is  the  baptism  of  the  theory. 

The  theory  has  nothing  to  stand  upon.  In  whatever  aspect 
we  look  at  it,  it  is  "  in  the  air."     It  is  a  contradiction  of  Classic 

27 


418  SUMMARY. 

usage.  It  is  without  support  in  Lexical  definition.  It  is  the 
antipodes  of  Patristic  sentiment.  It  is  not  a  "New  Version," 
but  it  is  an  adding  unto  and  a  taking  away  from  the  Word  of 
God  which  is  utterly  destructive  to  the  most  express  teachings 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Errors  of  the  Theory. 

1.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  fiaTzrO^w.  It  transforms 
this  word  into  l^dKrw  to  dip,  and  so  introduces  into  baptism  a 
conception  entirely  unknown  to  the  language  and  utterly  alien 
from  the  thought  of  inspiration. 

2.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  fiar.riaTr,q.  It  derives 
this  word  from  the  Classic  ^axri^a)  under  a  meaning  erroneously 
attributed  to  it,  instead  of  from  the  Jewish  fianzi'^u)  and  the 
meaning  attached  to  it  by  national  usage;  thus  converting  a 
religious  "Purifier"  into  a  water  Dipper. 

3.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning. of  ^dintana.  Divine  inspira- 
tion has  constructed  this  word  in  order  to  meet  its  own  exigency 
of  thought,  namely,  a  condition  of  soul  thoroughly  pervaded 
with  spiritual  emotion ;  but  the  theory  has  subverted  all  such 
purpose  by  fastening  a  dipping  upon  the  word. 

4.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ^dr^Ttaim 
fieTavoiai;.  A  condition  of  the  soul  proceeding  from  repentance 
is  converted  into  a  water  dipping;  as  unscripturally  associated 
with  repentance  as  iron  and  clay  are  unprofitably  commingled. 

5.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  i3d-Ti<T;j.a 
[leravoiaq  dq  a<psGv>  aiiapTiwv.  It  Substitutes  an  unscriptural  inter- 
pretation by  which  dipping  into  water  is  connected  with  the 
remission  of  sins,  instead  of  the  inspired  declaration  of  remitted 
sins  to  the  truly  penitent  through  the  Lamb  of  God. 

6.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  iv  udan.  It 
misunderstands  the  logical  relation  of  the  phrase  to  the  baptism, 
transforming  the  symbol  agency  into  the  receptive  element ;  and 
therefore  mistranslates  the  prejiosition,  making  it  demand  loith- 
inness,  while  it  represents  instrumentality. 

7.  The  theory  errs  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  ISazrd^oj  h  udarc 
elq  iinavoiav.  Having  mistranslated  iv,  and  misinterpreted  uSan 
(investing  both  with  the  borrowed  Avithout  leave  rights  of  eiq 
(xtravoiav)^  it  only  remained  to  cover  the  wrong  by  a  fresh  mis- 
translation of  dq,  and  the  excision  of  jM^Tavoiav  from  the  baptism 
altogether.    And  this  work  of  destruction  the  theory  has  done. 


DIPPING    IS    NOT   BAPTISM.  419 


nPiiTON  WEYAOS. 


Dr.  Halley  says,  "  Let  us  agree  to  find  out  the  truth,  adhering 
closely  to  Scripture,  carefully  endeavoring  to  detect  the  cause 
of  the  error,  on  whichever  side  it  be,  the  npaJTov  (/>£udoq,  which 
vitiates  all  the  subsequent  reasoning,  and  then  it  cannot  be  dif- 
ficult for  an  unprejudiced  mind  to  ascertain  the  truth."  This 
wise  counsel  I  have  endeavored  to  follow.  Under  it  I  have 
been  led  to  this  conclusion  :  The  UPP.TON  WEYAOE  of  the  theory 
is  the  erroneous  meaning  attached  to  BAnTIZQ,  =  a  definite  act,  TO 
DIP.  Hence^  the  rejection  of  Iv  udan  from  its  divinely  appointed 
relation  to  baptism  as  the  sjmibol  agency,  and  its  unscriptural 
conversion  into  the  receptive  element.  Hence,  the  mistransla- 
tion of  cv.  Hence,  the  destructive  excision  from  the  divinely  an- 
nounced baptism — eic  /-/.eravojav,  ei<;  afeaiv  dfiaprtiov — of  the  verbal 
element.  Hence,  the  mistranslation  of  ei^.  And  hence,  the  sad 
aphoristic  error  against  the  Head  of  the  church  as  well  as 
against  his  people — "No  dipping,  no  Baptism."  The  truth  in 
the  case  being — Accept  a  dipping  and  you  reject  a  haptisvi. 

The  friends  of  the  theoiy,  deceived  by  a  most  remarkable 
delusion,  have  bartered  the  priceless  baptism  of  inspiration  for 
a  worthless  dipping  of  human  imagination.  Whenever  they 
shall  awak«  to  a  realization  of  their  impoverished  condition  as 
without  any  baptism,  they  will  find,  unlike  Esau,  "the  baptism 
of  repentance"  graciously  awaiting  their  acceptance. 

In  the  endeavor  now  made  to  exhibit  the  usage  of  [iairriZo}  in 
John's  baptism,  I  have  sought  to  place  myself,  in  a  spirit  of  the 
most  absolute  dependence,  under  the  guidance  of  the  ipsissima 
verba  of  inspiration.  If  I  have  at  any  time  spoken  with  positive- 
ness,  it  was  only  because  of  a  profound  conviction  that  God's 
word  was  positive.  But  I  indulge  in  no  such  folly  as  would  sub- 
stitute my  conviction  for  God's  truth.  The  ground  of  the  con- 
clusions reached  is  distinctly  stated.  It  is  deferentially  sub- 
mitted for  examination.  If  it  cannot  abide  the  most  searching 
scrutiny  it  will,  and  will  most  justly,  fail.  But  if  the  foundation 
cannot  be  broken  up,  then  baptism  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  its  ritual  exhibition  by  symbol  water  applied  to  the 
body  will  abide  as  the  heritage  of  God's  people;  while  this  un- 
happy theory  leaves  its  too  confiding  votaries  with  a  dipping 
into  ivaier,  but,  I  am  truly  sorry  to  say  it — with  No  Baptism. 


420  SUMMARY. 

In  the  Lord's  Supper  Brend  and  Wine  arc  the  elements  di- 
vinely appointed  to  be  used  "^o  show  forth"  by  their  life-giving 
nature  what  is  the  life-giving  nature  of  ''  the  Lord's  death." 
In  ritual  Baptism  Water  is  the  element  divinely  appointed  to 
be  used  "fo  show  forth"  bjMts  physicallj' purifj-ing  nature,  what 
is  the  spiritually  purifying  nature  of  "Baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  is  not  effected  by  the 
ritual  use  of  Bread  and  Wine ;  it  is  only  "  shown  forth  "  by  these 
appropriate  life  symbols.  The  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
effected  by  the  ritual  use  of  Water;  it  is  only  "shown  forth"  by 
this  api^ropriate  purifying  sj-mbol. 

The  theory  does  not  profess  to  "■  show  forth"  that  divine  bap- 
tism which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  claims  to  effect 
another  and  utterly  diverse  baptism  of  its  own  by  dipping  into 
the  water.  Now,  if  a  dipping  could  be  converted  into  a  baptism, 
this  baptism,  thus  effected  by  the  theory,  would  be  quite  another 
thing  from  the  baptism  of  the  Bible.  But  a  dipping  is  not  a 
baptism;  therefore  the  theorj'- not  only  abandons  the  purpose 
for  which  ritual  baptism  was  established,  but  substitutes  a 
wholly  different  thing  for  the  Baptism  which  is  divinely  enjoined. 

Rome  claims  in  her  Mass  to  effect  a  sacrifice,  not  "to  show 
forth"  the  sacrifice  divinely  accomplished.  The  theory  claims 
in  its  ritual  service  to  effect  a  baptism,  not  "  to  show  forth"  the 
baptism  divinely  accomplished.  The  Mass  of  Rome  is  not  God's 
sacrifice.     The  dipping  of  the  theory  is  not  God's  baptism. 


FOURTH  EDITION. 


Uy  James  W.  Dale,  Pastor  of  (he  Media  Presbyterian  Church,  Delaware  Co.,  Penn. 


"  EXHAUSTIVE  "— "  OEIGINAL"— "  UNANSWEKABLE." 

"It  RANKS  WITH  Edwards  ON  THE  Will,"         ....     Eplsco-palian. 

"It  IS  REALLY  AN  EXTRAORDINARY  BOOK, "         ....      W.  Christian  Advocate. 

"Logic  OF  CniLLiNGWORTH  ;  wit  of  Pascal,"  .         .         .     JV.  I''.  Evangelist. 

"  It  COMES  IN  LIKE  Blucher  AT  AVaterloo,  ".  .         .         .     Co7igregatio7iat  Review. 

"The  ablest  Treatise  on  the  subject  in  the  English  Language,"      Central  Presbyt''n 

•' It  IS  A  Marvel,"     Dr.  H.  A.  B.  "  It  is  a  master-piece,"     Dr.  T.J.  W. 


Congregational  Review. 

"A  work  of  great  researcb,  scholarly  fidelity,  and  immense  labor.  Mr.  Dale's  treatment  of  Baptist 
authorities  is  comprehensive,  lihornl,  critical,  and  dissecting,  occupying  about  one  hundred  pages.  About 
sixty  pages  are  given  to  the  import  of  /JaTrrco-  These  pages  are  a  beautiful  specimeu  of  pcholarly,  contro- 
versial, and  kind  writing,  sprinkled,  and  even  at  times  immersed,  in  the  good  humor  of  the  author's  nature 
and  style.  Mr.  Dale  devotes  the  rest  of  his  noble  volume,  one  huodrcd  and  fifty  pages,  to  the  meaning  of 
ffaTTTi^co-    This  book  comes  in  as  Blucher  at  Waterloo,  and  the  helium  philologicum  ought  to  cease." 

Presbyterian  Banner. 
"To  the  minister  and  the  man  of  letters  it  is  a  great  armory  from  which  weapons  of  defence  may  be 
drawn.    Its  perusal  and  study  will  prove  to  be  a  delightful  and  invigorating  mental  discipline.    Wheti  this 
series  shall  have  been  completed,  it  will  at  once  take  the  place  of  the  noted  writings  hitherto  produced  by 
this  controversy." 

The  Presbyterian,   Moutnal,  Canada. 
'"Classic  Baptism  '  dispels  the  illusion  that  the  strength  of  the  philological  argument  is  on  the  side  of  our 
opponents.     Jlore  perhaps  than  any  other  writer,  Mr.  Dale  has  settled  the  vexed  question  as  to  the  meaning 
of /^airn'so)." 

Christian  Adyocate,  Ilamiltun,  Canada. 

•'We  are  fully  convinced  that  the  authur  has  forever  settled  the  question  of  modal  baptism  by  proving,  to 
a  demonstration,  that /?n[:rri?(j  does  not  expre-s  a  definite  act  of  any  kind,  much  less  that  of  dipping,  but 
that,  in  its  primary  use,  it  expresses  condition  without  limitations  " 

Protestant  Churchman. 

''  It  is  thoroughly  exhaustive,  and  exhibits  a  complete  mnstrry  of  the  subject.  If  the  other  volumea  o<5iial 
this  in  force  and  in  learning,  and  we  can  .scarcely  doubt  that  they  will,  the  author  must,  we  think,  be  ac- 
counted master  of  the  position."    • 

The  Episcopalian. 
"  In  th»  prosecution  of  the  undertaking  nothing  is  left  unnoticed,  nothing  is  left  unsaid  which  it  is  de- 
pirablo  to  view  or  to  produce.     The  book  maybe  fairly  ranked  with  Edwaids  on  '  The 'Will.' Gaussen  on 
'  In-pimtion,' and  Gcode  on  'Orders.'     Kepljcs  to  all  will  be  equally  difficult,  and  in  every  case  just  as  un- 
satisfactory." 

Western  Chuisti.vn  Advocate. 
"  As  a  philological  treatise  on  this  subject,  there  is  nothing  we  know  of  in  our  langUJlge  to  compare  with 
it.    The  most  industrious  and  independent  scholarship  has  been  brought  to  be.ar  upon  the  subject,  and  an 
invaluable  addition  has  thus  been  made  to  theological  literature.     It  is  really  an  extraordinary  book." 

Western  Presbyterian. 

"This  is  not  simply  a  new  hool- ;  it  is  a  new  wir/.-,  and  one  of  extraordinary  ability  and  originality — 
originality  in  the  whole  conception  and  investigation.  His  masterly  approaches  have  crumbled  the  Baptist 
stronghold  in  ruins.  Proof  is  carried  to  the  point  of  actual  demonstration.  The  marked  features  of  this 
work  are  thoroughness,  candor,  firmness,  freedom  from  asperity  (a  Christian  spirit  and  genial  humor  flow- 
lug  through  every  part  of  it),  and  a  singular  ability  and  acuteness  in  the  study  of  words.   Procure  this  booh." 

The  Presbyter. 
"  This  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  books  which  has  ever  appeared  in  opposition  to  those  who  hold  that 
SavTi^ui  always  means  to  immerse  or  its  equivalent.    It  i.san  original  and  exhaustive  work." 

The  Evangelist. 

"  The  author  does  not  follow  the  furrows  of  otliers  ;  he  holds  and  handles  a  subsoil  plough  of  his  own. 
The  manner  in  which  Baptist  advocates  are  shown  to  be  at  variance  with  each  other  is  admimble.  It  is  in 
tracing  the  shifting  of  the  terms  used  to  translate  /JaTri^oi  that  the  author  makes  perfect  havoc  of  Baptist 
scholarship.  His  style  of  doing  this  is  sometimes  positively  entertaining.  Our  Baptist  brethren  are  placed 
by  this  volume  in  a  sad  dilemma.  The  treatise  combines  the  thorough  and  sifting  argumentation  of  Chil- 
lingworth  with  much  of  the  wit  of  Pa.scal." 

Free  Christian  Commonwealth. 

"  Remarkable  skill  in  philology,  dry  and  imperturbablv  quiet  hnmor  carries  the  reader  along  unconscious 
of  weariness.  We  have  seldom  met  with  a  more  manly,  keen,  vigorous,  and  every  way  effective  specimen  of 
dialectics.  Humor  exudes  from  his  dialectic  falchion  as  fragrance  from  the  Damascus  blade,  by  reason  of 
the  intensity  of  its  tempering  and  polish.  Certainly  no  writer  ever  impressed  us  more  with  his  peculiar 
genius  as  a  philologist,  especially  his  keen  powers  of  discrimination  of  the  various  shades  of  thought  as  ex. 
pressed  by  symbol  words." 


Jiuligmijnt  of  ^cholnrji 


03' 

IN   MORE   THAN   TWENTY   THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARIES,  UNIVERSITIES,  AND   C0LLEGE8 


EPISCOPAL  AND  UNIVEESITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

"  Classic  Baptism"  embodies  an  immense  amount  of  research  and  learning.  The 
opinions  of  Professors  Goodwin  and  Hare  establish  its  merits. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Lee,  Delaware. 

The  pages  which  I  have  read  assure  me  that  the  subject  is  one  wholly  within  the 
grasp  of  a  sound  scholar  and  a  deep  and  close  thinker,  who  will  treat  it  with  all  the 
learning  and  argument  which  tiie  importance  of  the  question  demands. 

Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Stevens,  Pennsylvania. 

I  have  read  your  work  on  "Classic  Baptism,"  with  a  satisfaction  amounting 
almost  to  admiration.  If  it  has  any  fault,  it  is  that  the  discussion  is  too  thorough 
and  radical  to  be  generally  appreciated.  But  it  is  a  work  for  scholars;  and,  in 
fact,  just  such  a  discussion  is  what  was  needed.  It  has  long  been  my  conviction 
that  the  Baptist  controversy  is  practically  narrowed  down  to  this  one  point:  their 
allegation,  that  the  Greek  ^xnTi^ce  means  absolutely  and  always,  ex  vi  termini,  "to 
dip"  or  "  to  immerse,"  and  nothing  else.  If  this  position  is  turned,  the  Baptist  cause 
's  irrecoverably  lost. 

Your  book  will  reflect  credit,  not  only  on  your  Alma  Mater,  but  on  the  scholarship 
of  the  country.  I  am  many  degrees  prouder  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  than 
I  was  before  reading  it.  Daniel  R.  Goodwin,  D.D., 

Provost  of  the  University  of  Penn'a  and  Prof,  of  Theol.  Divinity  School. 

I  am  much  impressed  by  the  research  which  the  pages  of  your  book  exhibit, 
and  trust  that  its  success  will  be  equal  to  its  scholarship. 

G.  Emlen  Hare,  D.D.,  Divinity  School,  West  Philadelphia, 

Any  tenant  of  the  Greek  chair  must  feel  complimented  to  have  his  critical  judg- 
ment asked  upon  an  inquiry  so  elaborate  as  yours.  ...  I  can  fairly  do  no  more 
than  express  my  sincere  admiration  of  the  exhaustive  character  of  your  examination 
of  passages  from  the  entire  range  of  classical  literature,  and  of  the  singular  acutejiess 
with  which  you  have  scrutinized  the  phenomena  of  lunguage  thus  presented.  .  . 
Your  treatise,  when  published,  will  be  sure  to  attract  the  attention  of  classical  schol- 
ars as  well  as  of  theologians. 

George  Allen,  Professor  of  Greek,  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

METHODIST. 

I  regard  the  work  as  u  very  valuable  acquisition  to  theological  literature. 

Joseph  Cummings,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President,  &c.,  Wesleyan  University. 

1  nave  read  "Classic  Baptism"  with  great  interest  and  profit.  It  is  altogether 
the  most  thorough  and  exhaustive  discussion  ot  the  topic  that  I  have  ever  met  with, 
and  I  doubt  if  its  equal  can  anywhere  be  found.  The  author  settles  beyond  perad- 
venture,  the  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  /?,-,nT(j  and  da-nriiw  in  classic  usage.  The 
treatise  is  full  of  argument  and  illustration  cumpactly  and  systematically  arranged, 
forming  for  the  preacher  and  the  theological  student  the  most  perfect  handbook  on 
this  topic  extant.  It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  commend  the  work  with  unqualified 
approbation. 

P.  H.  Newhall,  D.D.,  Wesleyan  University. 

1  heartily  indorse  Dr.  Newhall's  estimate  of  "  Classic  Baptism." 

C.  S.  Harrington,  Wesleyan  University. 

I  have  but  glanced  at  "Classic  Baptism."  I  anticipate  the  pleasure  of  reading  it 
more  thoroughly.  Allow  mo  to  congratulate  you  on  the  very  encouraging  and  com- 
plimentary notices  which  your  labors  have  won  from  so  many  distinguished  sources. 

D.  P.  KiDDKR,  D.D.,  Garrett  Biblical  Institute. 


The  treatment  of  the  subject  is  beautifully  exhaustive.  Conceding  all  that  you  do 
for  ih.Q  primary  sense  of  the  words  under  discussion,  your  conclusions  yet  seem  to  me 
irrefragable. 

The  work  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  philological  literature,  and  cannot  fail  to 
have  a  weighty  bearing  in  the  application  of  the  argument  to  the  mode  of  Christian 
baptism. 

I  shall  look  with  much  interest  for  the  succeeding  volumes  that  are  promised. 

H.  M.  Johnson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  Dickinson  College. 


LUTHERAN. 

My  delay  in  replying  to  your  favor,  is  to  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  absorbing 
interest  of  the  work  you  did  me  the  honor  of  placing  in  my  hands.  I  have  endeav- 
ored, as  you  requested,  "to  look  over  it,"  but  have  found  that  next  to  impossible. 
My  attention  has  been  fixed  by  every  part  of  it,  so  that  I  have  had  to  go  into  the  reg- 
ular study  of  it.  Its  rare  originality  of  plan,  the  extensive  reading  indicated,  the  ac- 
curacy of  discrimination  everywhere  met  with,  the  honest  impartiality  observed, 
and  the  quiet,  pleasant  humor  that  every  now  and  then  looks  out,  altogether  combine 
to  mark  it  as  a  work  of  unusual  attractiveness,  and  destined,  I  doubt  not,  to  exert  a 
commanding  influence  upon  the  general  subject  of  this  famous  controversy.  The 
conclusion  so  aptly  stated  in  page  354,  is  clearly  made  out,  and,  as  I  consider,  nothing 
but  the  spirit  of  determined  adherence  to  mere  traditionary  usages  could  manage  to 
stand  out  against  it. 

C.  W.  ScHAEFFER,  D.D.,  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary. 

I  am  thankful  that  you  wrote  "  Classic  Baptism."  Page  after  page  exhibits  the  wea- 
pons I  knew  were  needed,  but  which  I  did  not  know  were  forged.  One-half  on  our 
side  are  not  aware  of  the  grand  array  which  this  book  shows  we  can  make  on  classic 
grounds.     1  mean  to  read  it  again,  as  Dr.  Schaeflfer  says  he  did. 

W.  Jesse  Knisely,  Ohio. 

DUTCH  REPOEMED. 

I  have  examined  your  "Classic  Baptism"  carefully,  and  with  absorbing  interest. 
I  thank  you  for  the  privilege.  1  believe  that  you  have  done  more  to  settle  the 
vexed  question,  anent  the  meaning  of /?a7rrt(a),  than  any  writer  who  has  preceded  you. 
The  discussion  interests  and  satisfies.  I  have  given  your  book  a  warm  recommen- 
dation to  the  middle  and  senior  classes  in  the  Seminary.  I  am  glad  to  see  the  pros- 
pectus of  the  Judaic  and  Johannic  Baptisms. 

God  bless  you  and  spare  you  to  write  many  more  good  books. 

J.  F.  Berg,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology,  &c. 


CONGREGATIONAL. 

If  I  were  to  utter  my  first  impressions,  T  should  break  out  in  unfeigned  admiration. 
That  one,  occupied  with  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  pastorate,  should  have  the  leisure, 
patience,  and  mental  energy  for  an  inquiry  seldom  surpassed  as  respects  thorough 
research,  is  to  me  a  marvel.  I  can  give  emphatic  testimony  to  the  analytic  power 
and  acuteness  which  the  treatise  exhibits,  as  well  as  to  its  marked  perspicuity  and 
directness  of  statement 

The  theory  that/Sajrri'sw  expresses  a  definite  act, — "mode  and  nothing  but  mode," — 
is  shown  to  be  pitiably  helpless  when  applied  to  "  all  Greek  literature."  .... 

J.  Henry  Thayer,  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

I  admire  the  energy,  perseverance,  and  unwearied  diligence  which  the  author  has 
put  forth  in  his  work.  There  is  no  other  way  of  dealing  with  such  a  subject  satis- 
factorily ;  but  how  few  there  are  capable  of  taking  it  up  in  this  way  !  Let  us  have 
/"acHnstead  of  declamation;  andi  fact  is  what  Mr. "Dale  has  given  us.  Out  of  this 
forest  of  philological  learning  I  should  hope  there  might  be,  in  due  time,  a  little 
grove  selected  for  the  security  and  comfort  of  the  unlettered  Christian. 

C.  E.  Stowe   D.D.,  late  of  Lane  and  Andover  Theol.  Seminaries. 


I  havo  looked  over  tho  work  carefully,  and  find  no  imperfections  to  be  corrected. 
Vol!  have  made  a  very  decided  advance  in  the  literature  of  the  subject.  I  am  much 
interested  in  the  numeruus  quotations  which  you  malcfi  from  classical  writers.  I 
have  never  seen  this  thinsj  done  so  thoroughly  and  so  well.  Your  book  ought  to  do 
much  toward  settling  the  disputed  question  as  to  tho  mode  of  "  Baptism." 

Enoch  Pond,  D.D.,  Bangor  Theological  Seminary. 

Perhaps  it  is  too  much  to  expect  that  your  work  will  finally  settle  the  controver- 
sies of  CL-nturies  upon  the  word  under  discussion,  but  it  is  safe  to  say,  that  what  you 
havo  written  will  not  be  easily  answered.  I  think  you  may  well  be  congratulated 
on  finding  lime  and  opportunity,  while  engaged  in  the  practical  duties  of  the  min- 
istry, to  produce  a  work  like  this, — evincing  so  much  learned  research,  so  valuable 
to  the  Biblical  student  and  so  creditable  to  American  scholarship. 

Leonard  Woods,  D.D.,  (Late)  President  of  Bowdoin  College. 

I  want  to  thank  you  for  eminent  service  rendered  to  the  Church  of  Christ  by  your 
"Classic  Baptism."  No  treatise  has  so  pleased  me.  No  one  has  so  laboriously  and 
carefully  covered  the  old  Greek  authors.  Having  run  over  about  two  hundred  vol- 
umes on  the  subjects  and  mode  of  baptism  in  Harvard  College  Library,  you  can  see 
how  I  should  enjoy  your  treatise.  I  shall  wait,  with  deep  interest.  Judaic  and  Jo- 
hannic  Baptism. 

W.  Barrows,  D.D.,  Reading,  Mass. 


PEESBYTEEIAN  (N.  S.) 

I  congratulate  you  on  your  able  and  convincing  treatise  on  "  Classic  Baptism. "  It  i> 
thorough  and  original — the  last  a  merit  hardly  to  have  been  expected  in  a  new  work 
on  so  old  a  controversy.  I  shall  recommend  it  to  our  students.  I  trust  you  will  gc 
on  with  your  labors. 

Your  last  proposition  (p.  354),  expresses  tho  result  of  classic  usage, — which  is  all 

you  aim  at  in  this  volume 

Henry  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

I  thank  you  very  heartily  for  "Classic  Baptism;"  a  rare  philological  achieve- 
ment, which  ought  to  prove  a  quietus  to  sectarian  strife,  about  the  necessity  of  im- 
mersion. I  do  not  see  that  you  have  left  anything  to  be  said  to  clear  the  meaning 
of  PairTi^ui,  or  how  you  can  be  answered ;  and  success  here  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
matter.  I  marvel,  with  Professor  Thayer,  at  the  labor  and  ability  with  which  you 
have  prosecuted  your  masterly  discussion. 

Thomas  H.  Skinner,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

You  have  certainly  shown  that  jia-rrTi^oe  do(;s  not,  like  BaTrrce,  mean  dip. 

KoswELL  D.  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

In  my  humble  judgment  it  is  exhaustive,  convincing,  and  irrefutable.  I  do  not 
gee  how  any  intelligent  reader  could  fail  to  get  the  solution  there  of  any  doubt  as  to 
the  mode  of  bai)tisin,  or  how  any  minister  could  fail  to  get  the  arguments  needed  to 
refute  the  ritualism  of  our  Baptist  brethren.  I  deem  it  of  the  highest  value  to  the 
whole  Church.  It  is  worthy  of  all  the  commendation  it  has  received.  I  do  not  see 
"anything  which  strikes  me  as  error,  or  imperfeotion,  or  which  might  be  better  put." 
I  hope  you  will  go  on  to  complete  the  Judsiic  and  Johannic  Baptisms. 

"VVm.  E.  Moore,  Pastor,  Westchester,  Pa. 

You  have  done  an  excellent  work  for  the  Church  in  dissolving  the  fancied  claims  of 
Iminersionists  to  the  support  of  tiie  Classics.  This  has  been  long  needed.  You  have 
done  the  work  thoroughly.  Your  acute  analysis  has  brought  out  conclusions  very 
nearly  like  my  own,  written  years  ago  and  never  yet  read  by  any  one. 

W.  11UFU.S  Powers,  Lysander,  N.  Y. 

I  (smd  my  as.soclates,  Professors  Ballantine,  Smith,  and  Evans)  have  read  your 
work  with  deep  interest.     I  had  supposed  the  classical  word  liaTtriso)  leaned  strongly 
toward  tho  Baptist  view  of  tho  subject,  but  I  cannot  see  how  your  position  can  po.s.si- 
be  answered 

D.  H.  Allen,  D.D.,  Lane  Theol.  Sem.,  Ohio. 


PRESBYTEEIAN  (0.  S.) 

I  fully  concur  in  the  favorable  judgment  of  your  work  on  Baptism  which  has  been 
expressed  by  Dr.  Green. 

CuARLES  lIoDGE,  D.D.,  Prlnceton  Theological  Seminary. 

Your  book  is  one  of  great  research  and  discrimination,  and,  contrary  to  ordinary 
expectations  of  etymological  controversy,  animated  and  entertaining.  It  certainly 
disposes  of  the  Baptist  argument,  in  as  far  as  that  relies  upon  an  unvarying  mean 
ing  of  the  words  in  question.  The  reasoning,  also,  is  of  such  a  nature  that  the  un 
learned  reader  may  follow  it  with  understanding  and  pleasure.     .     .     . 

Irrespective  of  the  theological  question  at  stake,  such  a  work  is  of  great  value  in 
view  of  lexicography.  It  is  not  often  that  we  meet  with  such  a  careful  exposition  ol 
a  word.     I  shall  look  with  interest  for  your  final  conclusion. 

James  C.  Moffat.  D.D.,  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 

I  regard  your  work  as  of  great  value  on  account  of  its  complete  collection  of  pas- 
sages in  which  the  contested  words  occur,  and  th(^  searching  examination  to  which 
Baptist  assertions  in  respect  to  them  have  been  subjected.  I  know  of  nothing  to  take 
its  place  in  that  portion  of  the  controversy  to  which  it  belongs.  The  industry  and 
patient  research  displayed  in  it  are  above  all  praise. 

VV.  IIenuy  GiiEEN,  D.D.,  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 

X  examined  very  carefully  your  manuscript  on  Baptism.  I  was  much  interested 
ii\  the  discussion.  The  work  evinces  much  industry  and  research.  To  me  your  po- 
sitions seem  to  be  well  chosen  and  strongly  fortified.  I  believe  that  the  publication 
of  your  work  will  be  a  valuable  acquisition  to  theological  literature. 

In  my  humble  judgment,  the  issue  reached  is  correct. 

S.  J.  Wilson,  D.D.,  Western  Theological  Seminary. 

More  and  more  of  late  our  Baptist  brethren  have  appealed  to  Philology.  I  have 
wondered  at  this.  There  is  no  weaker  point  in  the  argument  for  their  practice,  as 
Scapula's  Lexicon  would  enable  any  one  to  see,  as  Dr.  Rice  in  his  debate  with  the 
Rev.  Alexander  Campbell  sufficiently  showed,  and  as  Mr.  Dale  here  proves  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt  in  my  mind.  The  work  is  very  timely,  as  Dr.  Conant's  recent 
work  evinces. 

Wm.  S.  Plummer,  D.D.,  Columbia  Theological  Seminary. 

I  can  truly  say,  that  for  thorough  investigation,  clear  and  logical  discussion  and 
scholarly  and  discriminating  exegesis,  few  works  have  ever  afforded  me  as  much  un- 
mingled  satisfaction.  Mr.  Dale  has  succeeded  most  decidedly  in  overturning  one  of 
the  strongholds  of  Immersionists;  and  while  the  course  of  reasoning  and  investiga- 
tion is  thorough  and  conclusive,  the  style,  in  courtesy  and  quiet  humor,  presents  a 
most  incomparable  specimen  of  polemical  discussion.  The  book  ought  to  have  a  wide 
circulation  among  all  who  love  truth  rightly  presented.  1  shall  await  with  great 
interest  the  other  works  promised  on  Judaic  and  Johannic  Ba])tism. 

B.  M.  Smith,  D.D.,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Virginia. 

So  far  as  relates  to  all  the  leading  terms  of  the  inquiry,  you  might  with  better  rea- 
son even  than  Ammonius  name  your  tractate,  Il£pt6^oia)i'Jcui<5(a(/»£'ptJi'  \c^eo)v;  for  I  know  of 
nothing  in  any  language  which  can  compare  with  it  in  what  Professor  Williams  has 
so  felicitously  characterized  as  "the  refined  and  subtle  metaphysics  frequently  em- 
ployed in  tracing  the  derivation  and  transition  of  signification  of  words,  and  in  ap- 
plying the  results  to  the  words  employed  in  the  Baptistic  controversy."  I  regard 
all  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ  as  laid  under  obligations  to  you. 

Robert  W.  Lanuis,  D.D.,  Danville  Theological  Seminary. 

I  send  with  this  my  best  judginent  of  your  great  work You  have  left 

nothing  to  be  desired  as  to  "Classic  Baptism."  So  wide  is  the  research,  so  thorough  is 
the  analysis,  as  to  entitle  the  Avork  to  be  called  an  Encyciopcedia  in  this  branch  of 
learning.  I  believe  the  general  conclusion  of  the  work  to  be  inevitable.  I  rejoice 
in  its  appearance. 

Edward  P.  Humphrey,  D.D.,  Danville  Theological  Seminary. 


My  special  thanks  are  due  for  the  copy  of  your  "Classic  Baptism."  I  have  read 
It  with  uncommon  interest.  Your  positions  are  maintained,  it  seems  to  me,  with  the 
clearness  and  conclusiveness  of  demonstration.  Our  Baptist  friends  can  do  nothing 
but  unconditionally  surrender  Panrilw — as  modal.  They  are  utterly  routed — Gale, 
Carson,  Fuller,  L'ona7d,  and  all. 

I  sincerely  hope  that  you  will  go  on  with  your  Baptismal  labors,  according  to  the 
announcement  in  the  first  part.  Your  whole  design,  carried  out  with  the  success  of 
this  portion,  will  make  a  work  on  Baptism  without  a  parallel,  and  lay  theology  and 
the  Church  under  great  obligations. 

Willis  Lord,  D.D.,  Northwestern  Theological  Seminary. 

I  have  read,  in  part,  "Classic  Baptism,"  and  I  am  delighted.  Hope  it  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  other  volumes. 

David  McKinney,  D.D.,  Librarian  Presb.  Book  Rooms,  Pittsburg. 

What  with  the  thoroughness  of  your  research  and  the  rigor  of  your  analysis,  you 
have  left  our  Baptist  friends  no  foothold  within  the  domain  of  Classic  literature. 
More  than  this,  the  admirable  tone  and  temper  of  your  exhaustive  treatise  cannot  fail 
to  commend  the  work  even  to  those  who  will  here  find  one  of  their  foundations  so 
effectively  subverted.     By  all  means  go  on  with  your  inquiries  and  settle  this  question. 

H.  A.  BoARDMAN,  D.D.,  Philadelphia. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  your  work,  I  can  most  cordially  indorse  the  judg- 
ment of  my  old  friend  and  associate  in  Miami  University,  Prof.  Moffiit.  Opinions 
may  be  answered,  facts  cannot.     Your  book  is  demonstration. 

W.  C.  Anderson,  D.D.,  1st  Presb.  Church,  San  Francisco. 

A  really  valuable  book  and  a  fine  specimen  of  thorough  philosophical  analysis.  A 
capital  book  for  our  young  men  to  study,  as  a  specimen  of  the  way  in  which  the  true 
meaning  of  words  is  to  be  elicited.  It  has  given  me  clearer  and  more  definite  views 
and  more  especially  shown  the  broad  and  firm  ground  of  those  views. 

J.  B,  Ramsay,  D.D.,  Lynchburg,  Va. 

A  singularly  astute  and  searching  investigation.  I  have  read  it  with  that  zest  with 
wnich  I  used  to  read  the  "Diversions  of  Purley."  It  is  a  centre  shot  to  the  very 
heart  of  Baptist  ritualism.  If  the  bottom  has  not  been  knocked  out  of  the  Baptist 
tub,  it  has  been  made  too  leaky  to  hold  water  enough  to  immerse  anybody  in. 

Stuart  Robin.son,  D.D.,  Louisville,  Kentucky. 

UNITED  PRESBYTERIAN. 

It  becomes  necessary  to  meet  our  Baptist  brethren  on  their  own  ground.  This  you 
have  done.  And  by  fair  criticism  and  an  appeal  to  the  masters  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, you  have  clearly  demonstrated,  that  th(;ir  argument  in  favor  of  immersion, 
drawn  from  the  alleged  classical  meaning  of  (iaKTii^a),  rests  upon  a  foundation  of  sand. 

John  T.  Pressly,  Theological  Seminary,  U.  P. 

REPORMED  PRESBYTERIAN. 

I  regard  "  Classic  Baptism"  as  a  master- pikck.  The  enlarged  scope,  the  thorough- 
ness, the  candor,  the  excellent  temper,  and  the  sprightly  wit,  make  it  as  agreeable 
and  interesting  as  it  is  exhaustive.  So  lar  as  I  am  aware  there  is  nothing  equal  to  it. 
Our  Baptist  brethren  will,  I  think,  find  it  to  be  ^mmiswerable. 

T.  W.  J.  Wylie,  D.D.,  Theological  Seminary,  Ref.  Presb. 

CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND,  CANADA 

I  am  delighted  with  your  book.  It  seems  to  me  to  settle  the  qitestlo  vexafa.  Irre- 
fragable, to  a  free  and  unprejudiced  mind,  must  be  the  conclusion  reached  in  the 
closing  sentences  of  your  work.  Equal  succe-i^s  in  Judaic  and  Johannic  Baptism  will 
confer  upon  Picdo- Baptist  churches  a  benefit  incalculable  and  lasting.  I  congratulate 
you  on  the  literary  triumph  whi:h,  in  the  midst  of  pastoral  anxieties  and  labor,  you 
have  achieved. 

John  .Jknkins,  D.D.,  St.  Paul's,  Montreal. 


GERMAN  KEPORMED. 

I  thank  you  for  your  scholarly  work  on  Baptism.  It  is  very  evident,  on  a  cursory 
glance,  that  you  have  bestowed  a  vast  amount  of  labor  and  research  on  your  book, 
and  every  theologian  must  wish  you  health  and  strength  to  finish  the  two  other  vol- 
umes, both  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  for  the  honor  of  American  scholarship.  I 
hope  to  have  leisure,  after  awhile,  to  revise  my  volume  of  the  History  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church,  and  then  I  shall  revert  to  your  labors  with  interest  and  pleasure. 

Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  Professor,  «&c. 

Cause  for  serious  complaint  has  been  given  by  theologians  and  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rians by  concessions  far  beyond  philological  and  archeological  fact.  Your  able  and 
thorough  treatise  has  confirmed  my  convictions  on  this  point.  Baptists  have  pro- 
fessed a  willingness  to  stand  or  fall  by  their  interpretation  of  /SaTrrtfoj.  Your  work 
will  put  their  integrity  to  a  severe  test.  I  had  thought  the  philological  argument 
exhausted.  "  Classic  Baptism"  shows  that  the  material  has  been  but  meagerly  used 
and  not  to  the  best  advantage. 

J.  H.  A.  BoMBERGER,  D.D.,  Philadelphia. 


COLLEGES. 

The  most  elaborate  and  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  classic  use  of  the  words  ffdirru 
and  Panri^io,  with  the  corresponding  terms  in  the  Latin  language,  that  has  fallen  un- 
der my  notice  ;  evincing  tireless  research,  conscientious  thoroughness  and  candor, 
with  acute  discrimination  and  subtle  analysis  in  the  investigation  of  these  contro- 
verted terms. 

Lyman  Coleman,  D.D.,  Lafayette  College. 

.  .  .  It  is  the  most  elaborate  discussion  of  a  single  word  that  I  have  ever  seen. 
It  interested  me  much  more  than  I  expected.  It  is  full  of  subtle  analysis ;  but  it 
is  all  so  perspicuous  and  earnest  that  it  holds  the  attention  throughout.     .     .     . 

Fran.  A.  March,  Lafayette  College. 

The  main  point  of  the  treatise,  the  specific  use  of  the  word  contended  for,  seems 
to  me  to  he  made  out  with  perfect  clearness  and  conclusiveness,  so  as  to  settle  the 
question,  in  as  far  as  the  question  rests  upon  merely  philological  grounds. 

Another  feature  that  struck  me,  was  the  refined  and  subtle  metaphysics  frequently 
employed  in  tracing  the  derivation  and  transition  of  signification  of  words,  and  in 
applying  the  results  to  the  words  involved  in  the  Baptistic  controversy.     .     .     . 

Apart  from  its  direct  relation  to  the  great  Baptistic  controversy,  I  think  that  the 
work  would  be  regarded  by  all  competent  readers  as  possessing  great  interest  and 
value  as  a  contribution  to  philology.  I  doubt  whether  there  exists  another  so  long 
and  elaborate  investigation  of  a  single  word. 

D.  E.  Williams,  Western  University. 

I  am  glad,  for  the  truth's  sake,  that  your  book  is  so  well  and  ably  constructed.  I 
cannot  too  highly  express  my  sense  of  the  patience,  good  humor,  sound  logic,  and 
breadth  of  view  which  characterize  it.  If  your  promised  continuations  in  the  Judaic 
and  Johannic  branches  of  investigation  be  as  satisfactory,  you  must  be  congratulated 
as  furnishing  the  most  complete,  unanswerable,  and  at  the  same  time,  amiable  treat- 
ise the  Church  possesses  on  this  point. 

J.  Edwards,  D.D.,  Prest.  of  Washington  and  Jeflerson  College. 

...  I  have  sometimes  spent  an  hour  upon  a  line  of  Greek,  but  here  are  years 
spent  upon  a  word.  The  result  seems  to  me  perfectly  conclusive  as  to  the  use  and 
meaning  of  the  words  under  discussion.     .     .     . 

H.  C.  Cameron,  Professor  of  Greek,  Princetnn  College. 


"This  ipiisterly  work  investigates  tho  meanin,u;of  these,  wnnln  as  used  by  more  than  a  hundred  Greek 
Latin,  and  English  writers,  philos'iphers,  historians,  lun'ts,  and  tlKoloi^iaiis.  The  worii  has  been  one  of  vast 
labor  and  for  a  rieh  juize.    It  is  au  inquiry  fur  Irulli,  tkutu  that  will  in  due  time  be  ujipreciated  by  milliona 


American  Presbyterian  and  Theological  Review. 

"After  two  or  more  centuries  of  rontroversy  upon  a  siiif^le  word,  who  would  have  expected  a  truly  ori;;inai 
and  deeply  interesting  volume  upon  it?  Yet  this  is  what  Mr.  Dale  has  given  to  the  world,  takint;  up  for  the 
present,  ouly  the  clas.sic  usago  of  /SuTrri^o),  to  be  folluttcd  by  similar  treatises  nu  Judaic  and  .lohannic  Uap- 
tisms.  lie  eome.s  to  the  subject  from  new  points  of  view,  with  the  lar^'ost  philolocical  inductions,  and  the 
acuti'st  criticisms  and  inferences.  As  a  philological  study,  it  is  a  rare  work;  in  its  bearings  on  the  Baptist 
controversy,  it  ha.s  a  deep  theological  interest.  The  best  arguments  of  all  tho  noted  Baptist  writi'rs  are 
thoroughly  examined.  Dr.  Carson  fares  badly  iu  this  process,  and  Dr.  Conant  will  have  to  write  a  new 
edition  of  his  learned  treatise." 

MiiTuoDi.'^T  Home  Journal. 
"The  learned  author  divides  his  treatise  into  three  parts.  Part  I.  discusses  Baptist  views  as  presented  by 
eighlL'cii  of  th<ir  ablest  writers.  Part  1 1,  discu-ses  the  meaning  of  liAi>To,  TiNOO,  and  Dli'.  I'art  III.  is  a 
discussion  of  B.^CTIZ),  .Mruao,  and  Immkrse.  Quotations  are  mado  from  Iwenli/niDe  LnUu  nmX  .<;event;/-two 
Greek  authors.  From  this  ma-a  of  material,  tLorMUt;hly  analyzed  and  classified,  the  meaning  of  Bai'TIZO  is 
eliminated." 

I'llESIirTERlA.S. 

"While  wo  were  aware  that  Baptists  hail  not  thoroughly  mastered  tho  literature  of  tho  subject,  wo  were 
never  so  fully  convinced  of  the  fact  as  since  tho  appearance  of  this  treatise.  The  author  deals  most  fairly 
with  his  opponents,  never  concealing  their  strongi'.st  positions,  but  coming  up  to  tlieir  intrenchments,  as- 
saults thenj  boldly,  and  by  turning  them,  shows  tlieir  weakness.  Mr.  Dale,  by  au  exhaustive  philological 
examination,  has  shown  that  classic  authority  is  against  the  Baptists.  His  book  is  a  thesaurus  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  will  be  invaluable  to  the  ministry." 

Christian  Observer  and  Witness 

nvesti 

s,  phi 

.„ ^. .„ , Itii 

of  the  redeemed  of  earth." 

American  Piiesbvterian. 
"  Mr.  Dale  here  meets  the  emmy  on  their  own  fiebl,  shows  by  elaborate  and  exact  inve.stigation,  that  the 
researches  made  by  them  for  centuries  lead  to  results  hostile  to  their  own  theory,  and  spoils  the  Kgyptians, 
condemning  them  out  of  their  own  mouths." 

Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review. 
"The  allegation  that  /?ajrri's(J  his  but  one  meaning  in  the  whole  history  of  tho  Greek  language,  that 
mode  is  essentially  denoted  by  it,  that  it  always  signifies  to  dip,  is  most  effectually  disposed  of.  It  is  shown 
that  Baptist  writers  are  at  war  with  one  another  upon  this  subject,  which,  according  to  their  mode  of  view- 
ing it,  is  so  important.  It  is  shown  still  further,  by  an  aitual  exhibition  and  analysis  of  tho  passages  in 
cla.ssic  authors  in  which  tho  words  in  riuestion  occur,  that  it  is  (|uite  impossible  to  attribute  to  them  any 
such  sense  in  a  multitude  of  cases.  We  might  not  agree  with  the  author  in  every  particular  of  his  discus- 
sion, but  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  has  rendered  a  valuable  service  to  tho  cause  of  truth.  We  aball 
look  with  interest  for  the  remaining  volumes  of  the  series  examining  tho  usage  of  these  words  in  Jewish 
writings,  viz.,  Josephus,  Philo,  Ac,  and,  also,  the  character  of  tho  baptism  of  John." 

Central  Puesbvterian. 
"This  is  by  far  the  most  important  contribution  to  the  subject  which  has  been  made  during  tho  present 
century.  The  author  has  long  concentrated  a  mind  of  fine  critical  piiwer  upon  this  theme,  and  established 
certain  conclusions,  which,  wo  venture  to  predict,  will  give  abundance  of  trouble  to  those  opposing  hia 
views  for  many  a  year  to  cotno.  There  are  few  who  will  not  feel  surprisi'd  at  the  strength  and  value  of  the 
results  which  Mr.  Dale  has  brought  out.  Difficulties,  mountain  high,  aro  piled  on  the  Baptist  theory.  Their 
doctrine  of  classic  usage  is  fairly  weighed  and  found  wanting.  The  author  is  eminently  fair  in  dealing  with 
his  opponents.  Ho  is  always  respectful,  good  natured,  ami  modest.  This  volume  will  be  followed  by  two 
others  on  Judaic  and  Johannic  Baptisms.  We  shall  look  for  thi^m  with  great  interest.  This  long  contro- 
verted question  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  a  brother  who  is  able  to  exjiloro  it  to  tho  foundations.  We 
earnestly  advise  all  wlin  desire  to  n'ad  tlie  ablest  treatise  nti  the  suhjcct  which  Itas  yet  been  gii^eii  in  tite  English 
language  (iitui,  for  aught  we  can  tell,  in  any  other),  to  purchase  this  IkkiIc,  and  to  digest  it  well,  as  preliminary 
to  others  to  come.  Should  they  equal  this,  Mr.  Dale  will  bo  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  Church,  and  held 
as  'facile  princeps'  among  all  .\mericans  who  have  written  upim  the  subject." 

Northwestern  I'iiesbyterian. 
"The  inquiry  is  made  in  a  calm,  critical,  and  candid  spirit,  which  even  his  opponents  must  acknowledge. 
If  fair,  thorough,  and  candid  criticism  has  ever  s^'ttled  aiivthiug  beyond  reasonable  dotibt,  it  would  seem 
that  this  author  has  established  his  conclusion.  Mr.  Dale  shows  himself  master  of  the  wholo  field,  not  only 
of  the  Greek  literature  part  rif  it,  but  of  the  Baptist  literature  part  of  it,  and  also  of  tho  reasoning  and  po- 
lemic part  of  it.  This  scholarly  and  masterly  work  is  to  be  followed  by  two  other  volumes,  embracing 
Judaic  and  Johannic  Baptisms,  and  Christie  and  Patristic  Baptisms.  Our  author  has  done  enough  to  con- 
vince us  that  he  is  thoroughly  competent  to  anything  which  this  discussion  may  demand.  No  person  cau 
afford  to  do  without  this  work  who  would  be  thoroughly  posted  on  the  question." 


All  ELEGANT  VOLUME—"  EQUAL  TO  A  LONDON  BooK."    Octavo,  pp.  354.— Pricc,  $3.50. 
iCT'  Clergymen  and  Teachers,  13.00. 


WM.  RUTTER  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

Seventh  <&  Cherry  Streets,  Philadelphia. 


/FPAJP 


J 

SECOND   EDITION. 

JUDGMENT  OF  SCHOLAES  IN  ALL  DENOMINATIONS. 

''■  Fraught  with  humor  and  good  humor. ''^ 

■'Thorough — Candid — Conclusive," Prof.  Packard,  Episcopalmn. 

"Vindication — Thorough — Overwhelming,"   .     .     .  Prof.  'B^rg,  Dutch  Reformed. 

"Thorough — Exhaustive — Convincing,"    ....  Prof.  Lindsay,  iHe/A.  Episnipnl. 

"Learned — Thorough — Decisive," Prof.  Pond,  Congregational. 

"Sound,  Judicious,  Conclusive," Prof.  GoL.EMAy,Fres/>i/te,rian. 

"  Patient,  Vigilant,  Complete," Prof.  Lord,  Presbyter  Ian. 

"Analytic,  Exhaustive,  Unique," President  Edwards,  Presbyterian. 

The  judgment  given  by  these  scholars  is  entirely  independent ;  no  one  having  seen  or 
heard  of  that  of  the  other. 

Dr.  J.  F.  Berg,  Prof.  Theol.,  New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey, 
When  I  say  that  Judaic  Baptism  is  as  thorough  and  overwhelming  a  vindication  of  our  mode  of  baptifim 
Bs  Classic  Baptism  was  conclusive  as  to  the  meaning  oi  ffavri^o},  I  can  express  no  higher  appreciation  of  vour 
Work. 

Dr.  James  Strong,  Drew  Tkeol.  Sem,,  New  Jersey. 

The  order  which  you  have  pursued  is  the  only  just  one  in  the  case.    Your  argument,  as  developed  in 
Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism,  I  consider  as  perfectly  conclusive. 

Dr.  E.  Pond,  Theol.  Sem.,  Bnrigor,  Maine. 
I  have  read  the  book  through  with  great  interest.    Like  the  previous  work,  it  is  learned,  thorough,  ex- 
haustive, and  decisive.    It  seems  to  me  that,  of  /JaTrrt'sw  ^nd  its  derivatives,  nothing  more  need  be  said. 
T/ie  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion  is  refute,d. 

Dr.  Willis  Lord,  Theol.  Sem.,  Chicago,  Illinois. 
Judaic  Baptism  is  of  the  same  remarkably  analytic  and  exhaustive  charaxster  as  Classic  Baptism.    I  can 
scarcely  conceive  of  anything  more  unique  than  such  a  triad  as  Classic,  Judaic,  and  Christian  Baptism,  or 
more  likely  to  be  a  permanent  benefaction  to  the  coming  generation. 

Dr.  J.  W.  Lindsay,   Theol.  Sem.,  Boston,  Mass. 
I  have  been  deeply  interested  in  examining  Judaic  Baptism.    Your  treatment  of  the  subject  is  so  thorough, 
exhaustive,  and  convincing,  that  biblical  scholars  must  feel  you  have  placed  them  under  great  obligation. 

Dr.  J.  Packard,  Theol.  Sent.,  Alexandria,  District  of  Columbia. 
In  maintaining  that  (ianri^o)  always  means  to  immerse  or  dip  totally  under  water,  Baptists  have  main, 
tained  their  ground  by  the  most  forced  and  strained  interpretation,  and  in  defiance  of  usage,  and  with  the 
greatest  violence  to  language.  Dr.  Dale  has  determined  the  usage  of  ffaTrri^w  by  Jewish  writers  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  Apocrypha,  Jopephus,  &c.,  and  has,  we  think,  shown  conclusively  that  the  word  means  to  purify 
ceremonially.    His  works  deserve  a  place  in  every  clergyman's  library. 

Dr.  S.  J.  Wilson,  Theol.  Sem.,  Atleghenrj,  Penna. 
I  have  examined  the  use  of  £ij  by  Josephus  with  the  exposition,  pp.  92-95  ;  also,  as  used  by  the  Apostle 

Paul,  p.  .305  ;  and  by  Origen,  p.  320.     I  believe  your  interpretation  is  correct I  am  more  than  ever 

impressed  with  the  labor  and  research  which  your  book  evinces,  and  of  the  value  of  the  contribution  to 
theological  literature  which  you  have  made. 

Dr.  T.  W.  J.  Wylie,  Theol.  Sem.,  Philadelphia,  Penn. 
I  wish  that  all  who  can  feel  the  power  of  truth  were  baptized  with  the  truth  which  your  book  presents. 
Equal  in  argument  and  in  spirit  to  its  predecessor,  it  can  have  no  higher  encomium.    These  works  mark  an 
era  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject.     Henceforth  I  hope  the  discussion  will  be  put  on  the  ground  where  you 
have  placed  it.    Tnere  the  defence  is  impregnable. 

Dr.  Charles  Elliott,  Theol.  Sem.,  Chicago,  Illinois. 
A  very  able  and  exhaustive  treatise.  Your  former  treatise  on  Classic  Baptism  is,  I  think,  a  demonstration 
of  the  point  which  you  attempt  to  establish.  In  regard  to  the  use  of  d;  by  Josephus.  p.  92.  and  the  like  use 
by  Paul,  p.  305,  and  Origen,  p.  320,  I  refer  you  to  Harrison's  work  on  Greek  Prepositions.  Prof.  Harrison 
fully  supports  your  view  on  p.  211,  and  establishes  it  by  numerous  quotations.  See,  also,  Jeirs  Grammar, 
II.,  p.  297,  8.  V.  £ij.  Your  argument  to  prove  a  secondary  meaning  of  /?a7rri'?(j,  as  used  by  Origen,  p.  224,  I 
consider  as  conclusive.  You  may  say  with  Joab:  "I  have  fought  against  Kabbah,  and  have  taken  the  city 
of  waters." 

Dr.  L.  Coleman,  La  Fayette  College,  Easton,  Penna. 
The  Judaic,  like  the  Classic  Baptism,  is  in  my  estimation  a  marvel  of  indu.stry  and  patient  research, 
sound,  judicious,  and  conclusive.    These  two  volumes  will  remain  an  exhaustive  thesaurus  of  authorities 
and  argument  on  the  vexed  question  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  an  invaluable  aid  to  all  who  may  be  drawn 
iii',0  the  hapless  controversy. 

President  Jon.  Edwards,  D.D.,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 
I  know  of  no  such  works  on  baptism  as  these.  I  have  rarely  in  any  controversial  literature  met  with 
iirgumentation  so  sound,  patient,  persistent,  vigilant,  and  complete,  while,  at  the  same  time,  so  fraught 
with  humor  and  good  humor.  You  have  made  it  abundantly  manifest  that  "  the  theory  "  results  from  a 
superficial  investigation  compounded  with  the  anachronism  of  interpreting  ancient  and  oriental  bymodero 
and  occidental  customs. 


" //  denh  a  bio  u:  from  which  ^the  thtory  '  can  never  re  cover. ^^ 
"Nibble  Christian  bearing  toward  your  opponents,"  Bishop  L.  Scott,  D.D. 

"ReCOMMENBED  TO  STUDK.NTS  AS  ARLKST  IN  THE  LANGUAGE,"       PrOP.  J.  T.   PrESSLV.   D.D. 

"  All  the  world  acknowledge  your  great  success,"  President  A.  D.  Smith,  D.D 

"A  prodigy  of  philological  labor," Prof.  T.  H.  Skinner,  D.D. 

'     P>EVOND    THE    possibility   OF    SUCCESSFUL    ASSAULT,"   .       .       PrOF.    S.  YeRKES,  D.D. 
■     VOU   HAVE    FOUGHT    AND    TAKEN    THE    CITY   OF   WATERS,"         PrOF.   C.   ElLIOTT,  D.D. 

"The  testimonials  are  not  at  all  exaggerated,"       .     Rt.  Rev.  T.  M.  Clark,  DD 

Rev.   L.   Scott,   D.D. ,    Bishop  of  the  M/ihodist  Episcopal  Ch/irch,  J)ELAViA.nE. 

I  am  more  than  pleased  with  .ludaic  Baptism.  I  am  delighted.  Your  patient  toil,  your  discrimina- 
tion, your  skilful  management  of  materials  so  various  and  so  vast,  your  thoroughncs.s  even  in  minutia, 
and  your  noble  Chri.«tian  bearing  toward  your  opponents,  fill  me  with  admiration.  The  work  is  the  most 
scholarly,  thorough,  and  satisfactory  discussion  of  Judaic  Baptism  I  have  ever  seen.  Indeed,  I  know  of 
nothing  that  can  be  compared  with  it  in  its  e.\haustive  completeness.  It  deals  a  blow  from  which  the 
theory  can  never  recover. 

Rt.  Rev.  Thomas  jM.  Clark,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Ubooe  Island. 
Your  work  on  .Judaic  Baptism  richly  do.^erves  attention.     I  have  made  myself  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  it  to  be  satisfied  of  its  very  great  value.    I  do  not  think  that  any  of  the  testimonials  given  in  its 
favor  are  at  all  exaggerated. 

Rt.   Rev.  George  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  Assistant.  Bishop  of  K^ifTucKY. 

I  have  been  deeply  interested  in  your  work  on  Judaic  Baptism  and  regard  it  as  an  exceedingly  valua- 
ble contribution  to  the  literature  of  this  important  subject.  It  is  just  the  work  that  is  most  needed  in 
this  region.    I  trust  it  may  have  an  extensive  circulation  among  us. 

President  Asa  D.   S.mith,   D.D.,  Dartmouth  College,  New  Hampshire. 
Such  a  confluence  of  laudatory  and  approving  voices  have  fallen  upon  your  ear  that  mine  may  be 
lost  in  it.    You  need  no  word  of  praise  from  me.    The  learning,  ability,  and  industry  which  reveal  them- 
selves at  a  glance,  all  the  world  are  acknowledging.    I  congratulate  you  on  this  great  success. 

William  Blackwood,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Penna. 

Dr.  Dale  has  produced  the  most  learned,  accurate,  and  thoroughly  unanswerable  argument  on  the 
point  on  which  his  book  bears,  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Dr.  Dale  has  the  satisfaction  to  see  his  book 
taking  rank  in  the  libraries  of  educated  men. 

John  T.  Pressly,  D.D.,    Theul.  Sem.,  Alleghany,  Penna. 

I  have  just  finished  my  lectures  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  have  recommended  j'our  work  to  the 
students  as  the  ablest,  on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  in  the  English  language. 

President  G.  Wilson  McPhaill,  D.D. ,  Davidson  College,  N.  Carolina. 
You  bring  cumulative  evidence  to  the  truth  of  your  previous  proposition,  and  show  conclusively  that 
.Judaic  Baptism  is  effected  by  washing  the  hands,  by  sprinkling,  and  by  pouring.  In  fact,  after  reading 
your  book,  I  am  led  more  than  ever  to  doubt  whether  bapcism  was  ever  performed  by  immersion  after 
the  manner  of  the  Baptists.  Their  case  seems  to  involve  the  singular  error  of  contending  for  almost  the 
only  possible  mode  in  which  baptism  was  ne^nar  performed.  Certainly,  after  candidly  reading  Judaic 
Raptism,  Baptists  must  be  satisfied  if  they  can  find  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  total  immersion  is  one  of 
tlie  various  allowid  modes. 

Stephen  Yerkes,  D.D.,  Danville  Theol.  Sem.,   Kentucky. 

You  are  giving  the  question  by  far  the  most  thorough  and  scholarly  sifting  it  has  ever  received.  Tonr 
works  are  an  honor  to  the  scholarship  of  the  country,  aod  a  lasting  monument  to  your  patience  of  research, 
your  skill  in  philology,  and  your  power  and  vigilance  in  the  conduct  of  a  difficult  and  intricate  argument. 
I  believe  you  have  established,  beyond  the  po.ssibility  of  successful  assault,  the  position  taken  in  this  vol- 
ume. And  as  thc«  conclusion  here  reached  is  but  the  logical  development  of  the  general  proposition  main- 
tained in  Classic  Baptism,  and  is  itself  so  indubilahly  certain,  it  is  confirmatory  of  that  proposition.  Com- 
plete your  original  plan,  and  thus,  by  a  third  volume,  crown  your  admirable  contributions  to  the  theo- 
logical literature  of  the  age. 

Thomas  H.  Skinner,  D.D. ,  Union  Theol.  Sem.,  New  York. 
Judaic  Baptism  is  a  very  searching  book  and  requires  close  reading.  It  is  a  prodigy  of  philologica 
labor.  In  English  literature  it  is  without  a  parallel.  When  or  where  was  so  much  written  on  A  woRDf 
The  lyarning,  the  logic,  the  style,  the  spirit,  and,  I  may  add,  the  effectiveness  of  your  book,  give  it  an  esti- 
matidh  unsurpassed  by  any  book  of  the  same  class,  that  I  have  ever  read.  The  narrowness  of  our  Baptist 
brethren  has  nothing  to  rest  on,  and  I  think  they  will  renounce  it.  But  other  topics  beside  baptism  are 
illustrated  by  your  book.  Noone  can  intelligently  read  it  without  being  indebted  to  you  for  enlargement, 
if  not  for  correction  of  his  views,  on  not  a  few  points  of  high  importance.  I  congratulate  j'ou  on  your  great 
success  as  an  author.  May  the  Lord  hold  you  as  a  star  in  His  right  hand,  and  cause  you  to  shine  more 
and  more  brightly  to  the  glory  of  Ills  holy  name  ! 

Rt.  Rev.  J.  Johns,  D.D.,  Bishop  o/' Virginia. 
Your  work  has,  indeed,  commended  it.self  to  our  ablest  biblical  scholars.     I  promise  myself  much 
pleasure  and  profit  from  a  careful  study  of  its  valuable  contents.     I  have  no  doubt  that  the  happy  influ- 
ence of  the  volume  will  more  than  compensate  yon  for  the  time  and  labor  bestowed  on  its  preparation, 
and  hope  that  it  will  encourage  you  to  make  the  church  yet  more  largely  your  debtor. 

Rev.   S.  Bowers,   Bedford,  Indiana. 
With  great  interest  have  I  both  read  and  studied  "Classic  Baptism."    In  my  humble  judgment  it 
will  do  more  toward  settling  the  question  of  mode  than  any  other  uninspired  book  yet  published. 


Rev.  S.  F.   Milliken,  Morrison,  Illinois. 
I  am  under  ten  thousand  obligations  to  you  for  your  Classic  Baptism. 


"  Jetvet.t.  and  Dale,  '  whom  nobody  kiiows,''  use.  Iieavy  gniis.^^ 

'•Criticisms  on  Classic  Baptism  he  takes  occasion  to  gibbet,"  Princeton  Review. 

"Far  above  any  like  work  in  English  literature,"       .     .  Southern Presb.  Revt6io 

•'Admirably  arranged,   transparently  worded,"     ....  Standard  of  the  Cross. 

"In  the  most  gentle  and  pleasant  spirit," Chris^tian  Instructor. 

"One  of  the  most  striking  and  effective  of  this  age,"    .  Episcopalian. 

'  It  is  A  WONDERFUL  BOOK," W.  Christian  Advocate. 

'  His  TWO  volumes  really  mark  AN  ERA  IN  THIS  CONTROVERSY,"  American  Presb.  Review. 

Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  South  Carolina. 
This  remarkable  book  has  attracted  mucU  attention  among  American  scbolar.s.  Its  conteut.«  are 
unique.  Tbey  constitute  a  body  of  suggestive  and  most  luminous  hints,  easily  pursued  to  the  overwhelm- 
ing conclusion  to  which  they  point.  It  stands,  as  a  controversial  work,  far  above  any  we  are  acquainted 
with  in  the  whole  range  of  English  literature  upon  this  subject.  It  is  old  and  it  is  new.  It  is  trite  and 
it  is  original.     It  is  short  and  it  is  thorough.    It  is  moderate  and  it  is  conclusive. 

Christian  Observer  and  Free  Christian  Commonwealth,  Kentucky. 
If  there  is  any  wisdom  in  the  maxim,  "Fight  the  devil  with  fire,"  there  is  equal  wisdom  in  Dr. 
Dale's  practice  of  fighting  the  Baptists  with  water.  And  never  did  steam  fire-engine  play  its  vigorous 
stream  upon  a  mob  to  its  scattering  more  effectually  than  Dr.  Dale  with  the  vigorous  stream  of  his  water 
criticism,  upon  those  who  have  been  so  noisily  assailing  their  brethren.  Judaic  Baptism  is  every  way 
worthy  of  the  authorof  Classic  Baptism.  It  has  the  same  excellent  temper,  the  same  remarkable  genius  for 
philology,  the  same  vigorous  argument,  the  same  remarkable  scholarship  and  fine  literary  discrimination. 

Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review,  New  Jersey. 
.  .  .  But  Dr.  Dale  will  not  allow  any  sbufliing;  he  holds  them  to  the  strict  terms  of  the  bond,  and 
with  a  great  amount  of  good-humored  bantering,  but  with  clinching  force,  shows  that  "dip"  will  not 
answer  in  a  single  instance.  From  this  primary,  physical  sense  of  '  intusposition,"  without  limitation  of 
manner  or  duration,  the  word  passed  in  classic  Greek  to  a  secondary  use,  that  of  describing  a  couditioi 
of  complete  subjection  to  some  controlling  power  or  influence,  particularly  a  ruinous  or  destructive  sub 
jection.  The  word  has  reached  a  secondary  sense  which  has  passed  beyond  the  mere  region  of  trope  and 
conscious  figure  or  figurative  application,  and  has  become  a  new  and  veritable  meaning.  The  Baptists 
endeavor  to  extract  some  image  or  emblem  to  sustain  their  theory,  but  Dr.  Dale  pertinaciously  meets 
them  at  every  turn,  and,  in  the  most  provoking  manner  holds  the  theory  up  to  merited  ridicule.  The 
fundamental  idea  in  Judaic  Baptism  is  the  subjection  of  an  object  to  some  foreign  controlling  influence, 
not,  however,  for  its  destruction,  but  for  its  purification  and  salvation.  Dr.  Dale  has,  in  these  volumes, 
put  the  Baptists  on  the  defensive,  instead  of  merely  repelling  their  attacks.  His  arguments  are  not  to  he 
put  aside  hi/  vituperation.  The  criticisms  on  his  former  volume  he  takes  occasion  to  gibbet  in  the  beginning 
of  this.  These  volumes  constitute  an  armory  which  no  minister  can  well  afford  to  be  without.  Frank 
and  straightforward,  never  intentionally  unfair,  with  an  overplus  almost  of  pleasant  raillery,  but  without 
harsh  words  and  abusive  epithets,  these  books  are  an  important  contribution  to  the  /Jairrt^o)  controversy. 

American  Presbyterian  Review,   New  York. 

The  previous  work  of  Dr.  Dale  commanded  very  general  attention,  and  fully  sustained  his  positions 
as  to  the  significance  of /Jairri^tj.  Many  Baptist  critics  Were  quite  at  a  loss  what  to  make  of  it,  and  several 
dismissed  it  with  evasive  or  abusive  notice.  Dr.  Dale  commences  his  present  volume  with  a  summary 
view  of  their  utterances,  exposing  the  shallowness  of  their  criticisms  or  the  contemptuous  ignorance  which 
they  display.  It  is  very  evident  that  Ids  conclusions  are  not  to  he  set  aside  hy  any  criticisms  that  liave  yet  heen 
offered.  He  cites  passages  from  the  Jewish  writers  and  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  and  with  the  same 
rare  sagacity  and  keen  discrimination  of  which  he  has  shown  himself  to  be  .so  thorough  a  master,  he 
demonstrates  that  /Jarrri^w  cannot  have  the  exclusive  meaning  '  dip."  He  estahlishes  his  position,  that  all 
through  the  Patristic  interpretations  of  Jewish  baptisms,  it  is  written  in  characters  so  plain  "that  a  way- 
faring man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err  therein,"  tliat  a  dipping  or  a  covering  with  water  never  enters  into 
their  thoughts  as  a  requisite  for  baptism.  Indeed,  the  incongruity  that  results  from  a  logical  applica- 
tion of  "the  theory"  he  opposes,  becomes  sometimes  absolutely  ludicrous.  As  an  intellectual  discipline, 
this  work  will  invite  and  reward  study.     His  two  volumes  really  mark  an  era  in  the  controversy. 

Central  Presbyterian,  Virginia. 

We  rejoice  in  the  progress  of  this  great  undertaking.  The  present  volume  is  in  every  respect  equal  to 
the  first.  While  Dr.  Dale  is  necessarily  controversial,  we  have  never  seen  a  more  thoroughly  good- 
natured  antagonist.  If  he  takes  hold  of  Baptists  and  pinches  them  sorely  under  an  iron  grip,  it  is  nut 
for  the  satisfaction  of  hurting  them,  but  because  it  cannot  be  helped.  One  of  the  most  pleasant  parts  of 
the  present  volume  is  in  the  sixty  pages  in  which  he  reviews  the  criticisms  they  have  attempted  on  his 
former  work.  It  is  a  fi,rst-rate  specimen  of  masterly,  keen,  but  good-tempered  controversy.  lie  is  always 
gentlemanly,  and,  therefore,  never  descends  to  the  use  of  ungentlemanly  language,  even  when  most 
strongly  provoked  by  its  application  to  himself  by  others.  This  may  be  seen  in  the  answer  given  to  Prof. 
Kendrick.  .  .  .  All  who  furnish  themselves  with  these  volumes  will  be  finely  repaid. 

Western  Christian  Advocate,  Ohio. 

We  close  our  brief  notice  of  Judaic  Baptism,  by  saying  it  is  a  wonderful  book.  Qet  it  and  read  it,  and 
you  will  neither  regret  the  time  nor  the  money  thus  employed. 

Advance,  Illinois. 
Baptists  have  long  desired  an  adversary  to  grapple  with  the  Greek  terms.     Dr.  D.ale  is  the  man  for 
them.     He  insists  ou  Greek,  nothing  but  Greek.     His  conclusion  is  a  bomhsliell  in  the  Baptist  camp.     It  has 
brought  out  both  respectful  and  vituperative  answers.    The  work  is  able,  thorough,  and  convincing. 

The  Pacific,  California. 
A  year  or  more  ago  the  Baptist  world  was  astoni.shed  at  the  appearance  of  Classic  Baptism.  A  second 
edition  was  called  for  in  four  months.  Its  author  received  a  Doctorate.  We  do  not  see  how  any  one  can 
dispute  the  learning,  thoroughness,  and  real  critical  ability  shown  in  these  volumes,  nor  how  the  con- 
«lusions  reached  can  be  impugned.  When  Prof.  Jewett  criticised  the  Baptist  Bible,  they  asked,  '■  Who  is 
this  Jewett?  "  When  Dr.  Dale  wrote  Classic  Baptism,  he  was  said  to  be  an  "  upstart,"  one  "who  had 
spent  his  life  in  a  country  village."    Jewett  and  Dale,  "  whom  nobody  knows,"  use  pretty  heavy  gunsl 


"  Jtidaie  Baptism  is  worthy  of  the  author  of  Classic  Baptism." 

"A  TUORCCGHLY  GOOD-NATURED  ANTAGONIST," Central  Presbyterian. 

"A  BOMBSHELL  IN  THE   BAPTIST  CAMP," Advance. 

"Conclusions  cannot  be  impugned," Pacific. 

"Arms  from  head  to  foot  against  Immeksionists,"  .     .     .     .  Standard  of  the  Cross. 

■'  Intellectual  task  inviting  to  the  Scholar,''        ....  Evangelist. 

"This  is  a  work   for  the  age," Methodist  Recorder. 

"Complete  armory  for  Scriptural  Baptism," Presbyterian. 

CONGREGATIONALIST    AND    BOSTON   RECORDER,    MaSS. 

Dr  Dale  attaches  great  importance  to  showing  bow  the  meaning  "  to  purify"  could  originate.  It  ia 
of  much  greater  importance  to  show  that  it  did,  in  fact,  originate.  This  fact  Dr.  Beecher  and  others  had 
already  proved,  and  Dr.  Dale  has  added  new  evidence  of  great  value.  Judaic  Baptism  will  be  a  valuable 
storehouse  of  facts  and  evidence. 

The  Episcopalian,  Pennsylvania. 

Our  expectations  are  fully  realized  iu  "Judaic  Baptism."  Sprinkling  and  pouring  are  proved  to  be 
modes  of  baptizing.  The  importance  of  the  decisions  of  this  point  cannot  be  overestimated.  The  extent 
of  research,  the  patience  in  investigation,  the  closeness  of  coraparipon,  and  the  candor  and  strength  of 
judgment  make  this  treatise  one  of  the  mosc  striking  and  effective  which  has  appeared  in  this  age. 

Prf.sbvterian,  Pennsylvania. 
This  volume  opens  with  some  keen  replies  to  criticisms  on  Classic  Baptism.  He  simply  lumps  together 
a  number  of  the  abusive  sentences  of  Dr.  Kendrick,  with  which  he  filled  his  review  in  the  Baptist  Quarterly, 
and  lets  them  stand  as  condemning  the  whole  article.  Ue  treats  with  great  thoroughness  all  baptisms 
.spoken  of  by  Jewish  writers,  inspired  and  uninspired.  This  volume  will  be  more  interesting  to  the  mass  of 
readers  than  Classic  Baptism.  Beyond  all  question.  Dr.  Dale  is  furnishing  a  complete  armory  in  behalf 
of  the  Scriptural  mode  of  baptism. 

The  Standard  of  the  Cross,  Ohio. 
If  any  clergyman  wishes  lo  be  clad  from  head  to  foot  against  all  the  sophistries  of  the  Immersionists, 
he  has  only  to  master  this  one  book.     Such  stores  of  classical  learning,  so  condensed  and  admirably 
arranged  and  transparently  worded,  are  seldom  found  packed  away  in  a  volume  of  350  pages.     It  is  no 
wonder  that  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  hastened  to  lay  a  Doctorate  at  the  learned  author's  feet. 

Religious  Telescope,  Ohio. 
If  any  one  wishes  to  read  a  work  written  in  an  interesting  style,  with  clearness  and  ability,  in  oppo- 
sition to  able  Baptist  writers,  he  will  tind  Judaic  Baptism  such  a  work.     It  is  a  perfect  feast  for  those 
whose  special  delight  is  in  polemics. 

Cheistian  Instructor  and  United  Presbyterian,   Penna. 
Classic  Baptism  is,  and  the  more  it  is  studied  the  more  it  will  be  found  to  be,  the  book  that  will  go 
far  to  settle  this  question.     It  is  written  in  the  most  gentle  and  pleasant  spirit.     A  third  edition  has 
already  been  called  for.     Judaic  Baptism  is  a  complete  presentation  of  the  subject.     It  is  always  marked 
with  peculiarly  good  lemper.     This  work  will  be  welcome,  convincing,  and  eminently  satisfactory. 

Herald  and, Presbyter.  Ohio. 
No  book  of  the  age  has  been  more  highly  commended  than  Classic  Baptism.     Judaic  Baptism  is  des- 
tined to  enjoy  a  reputation  equally  flattering.     No  man  has  equalled  Dr.  Dale  in  the  thoroughness  and 
ability  with  which  he  has  discussed  the  mode  of  baptism.    Every  theologian  should  have  these  two  volumes. 

Christian  Intelligencer,  New  York. 
The  author  seems  determined  to  give  no  quarter  to  our  Baptist  brethren.    Tho.se  interested  in  the 
Baptist  controversy  will,  ofcour.se,  examine  for  themselves  the  grounds  of  the  author's  argument.     They 
can  scarcely  fail,  we  thiuk,  if  open  to  conviction,  to  acknowledge  its  correctness.     An  exclusive  meaning 
is  the  Baptist  Gibraltar.     Hence,  we  expect  a  lively  controversy  from  this  vigorous  attack  upon  it. 

Methodist  Recorder,  Ohio. 
This  is  a  work  for  the  age.     The  positions  claiming  the  same  meaning  for  pairro)  and  /iuTri^o),  and  dip 
as  the  invariable  meaning  o(  lia-n-ri^o),  are  demonstrated  to  be  impossible.     Those  who  differ  in  sentiments 
a-Tv  fairly,  kindly,  and  bravely  met  on  their  own  chosen  ground.    The  most  learned  in  the  land  pronounc* 
it  »  MABTERPI£CE. 

The  Evangelist,  New  York. 
He  shows  himself  a  thorough  master  of  his  subject,  and  his  discrimination  of  meanings  and  shades  ot 
meaning  is  itself  a  study  which,  even  as  an  intellectual  Isusk.  is  inviting  to  the  scholar.  It  is  frequently 
amusing  to  see  how  completely  be  turns  the  tables  ou  his  oi)ponents,  and  how  summarily  he  routs  them 
from  tbeir  strongholds.  Dr.  Dale  insists  that  the  word  makesdemand  for  acondition  and  not  for  a  modal 
act,  and  with  this  view  every  impartial  and  intelHyeid  ri'.aUcr  must  accord. 

Westkrn  Presbyterian,  Kentucky. 
Dr.  Dale's  method  of  investigation  is  the  i)roper  one.  Opponents  are  bound  to  show  that  he  has  mis- 
quoted or  misinterpreted  the  wrilirs  lo  whom  he  appeals.  If  they  decline  to  do  this,  they  confess  themselves 
van(|uished.  If  they  make  the  attempt  and  fa/1,  tueir  cau.se  is  lost.  We  wait  to  see  what  Baptist  scholars  will 
do.  They  have  made  a  beginning.  The  Baptist  Christian  J'ress  thinks  the  author  to  be  an  '•  ignoramus," 
an  "upstart,"  and  a  "  lunati<>."  J'rof.  .1.  C  Kendrick,  D.D  .(^iihv  Baptist  Theological  Seminary.  Kochester, 
N.  Y.,  thinks  that  he  is  "a  philological  thimble  rigger."  and  a  good  many  other  equally  complimentary 
things.  While  the  National  Baptist  thinks  Dr.  Dale  is  "an  author  of  no  small  ability,'"  whose  scholariy 
work  "challenges  our  admiration."  Wi^  think  these  volumes  wdl  compel  the  Immersionists  to  abandon 
their  stronghold.  There  are  signs  of  this  already.  Dr.  Kendrick,  in  the  Baptist  Quarterly,  tosses  dip 
overboaid.  saving:  "It  is  not  a  dipping  that  our  Lord  instituted.  Baptizo  xecer  </ofS  erigage  to  lake  its 
sulyects  out  of  the  vmler."  Now,  some  honest  Baptist  (dipper)  will  open  his  eyes  at  this,  and  ask.  "  What, 
then,  are  we' to  do?  "  Kendrick  says,  you  must  get  out  of  the  wateron  your  "  normal  muscular  action."  (I) 
This  18  something  for  those  who  have  Ihoiigbt  tluit  they  knew  what  Haplizo  meant— "</ir-  ''1'*  nothing 
but  dip,  through  ail  Greek  literature"— U<  think  about.     VVe  leave  it  with  Ihem. 


"Frank,  straightforivard,  neoer  lnl(nfionnlly  unfair.^' 

1  HAVE  BEEN  FASCINATED  WITH   TOUR  WORKS," Rt.  Rev.  A.  C.  CONE,  D.D. 

"  For  the  cause  op  truth  a  most  valuable  work."     .    .    .    .    N.  L.  Rice,  D.D. 
"Your  volumes  mark  an  epoch  in  this  controversy,"     .    .    .    H.  A.  Boardman,  D.D. 
"It  should  be  in  the  library  of  every  clergyman,"  .    .    .    .     Bishop  Simpson,  D.D. 

"MASSAsiPPi  YOU  have  pound  your  match," Rev.  J.  W.  Moore. 

"Pages  spiced  with  wit  are  agreeable,  sometimes  amusing,"   United  Presb.  Review. 
"  The  water  is  taken  from  under  them.    They  are  stranded,"   Congregational  Review. 

Rt.  Kev.  a.  Cleveland  Cuxe,  D.D.,  Bi-<hn/i  <</"  Wkster.v   New   Yokk. 

"  I  have  been  so  fascinated  with  Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism,  that  I  have  read,  in 
spite  of  myself,  until  I  am  forced  to  lay  them  down,  and  write  at  once,' to  thank  you 
Your  work  must  force  our  Baptist  brethren,  for  very  shame,  to  sjive  up  their  extreme 
ideas  on  this  point.  Their  enterprise  of  reforming  our  dear  old  English  Bible,  just 
at  this  time,  makes  your  works  vei'y  opportune,  and  they  annihilate  the  pretences  of 
the  scheme  so  eti'ectually,  that  I  trust  it  will  be  given  up.  I  will  commend  j'our  books 
to  my  Reverend  brethren,  and  I  am  grateful  that  they  will  find  such  an  armorj'  in 
your  pages." 

Blshop  Simpson,  D.D.,  MeihudUt  Ejuscd/ml  Cuirrh. 

"  I  have  examined  your  work  on  Judaic  Baptism,  and  have  been  greatly  pleased. 
The  work  evinces  great  industry  and  research,  and  is  exhaustiv^in  its  character.  It 
should  be  in  the  library  of  «very  clergyman." 

N.  L.  PiiCE,  D.D.,  President  of    Wesimhifiter  Cvllec/e,  MLS.soirRi. 

"  You  have  done  for  the  cause  of  truth  a  most  valuable  work — evidently  the  result 
of  long  and  patient  labor.  Your  criticisms  on  the  terms — Greek,  Latin,  and  Eng- 
lish— involved  in  the  controversy,  are,  in  my  judgment,  sound  and  of  great  value. 
These  two  works,  as  it  seems  to  me,  go  far  toward  settling  the  controversy  with  im- 
partial minds.  I  do  not  know  that  1  should  difter  from  your  views  in  any  important 
point." 

Henry  A.   Boardman,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pen.v'a. 

"  I  am  greatly  impressed  with  the  thoroughness  and  ability  of  Judaic  Baptism. 
The  publication  of  your  volumes  marks  an  epoch  in  this  protracted  controversy.  You 
have  laid  upon  our  Baptist  brethren  a  task  beywnd  their  strength.  Why  did  you  not 
go  about  your  work  ten  years  sooner,  and  save  them  the  labor,  vexation,  and  ex- 
pense of  their  '  New  Version  ?'  " 

W.  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  Princelon  Thcoloyical  Seminary,  ISIew  Jersey. 
"  These  and  similar  cases,  Baptist  writers,  by  means  of  dexterous  manipulation  and 
an  adroit  change  of  terms,  are  in  the  habit  of  claiming  as  though  they  made  in  their 
favor.  But  Dr.  Dale  will  not  allow  any  shuffling ;  he  holds  them  to  the  strict  terms 
of  the  bond,  and  with  a  great  amount  of  good  humored  banter,  but  with  clinching 
force,  shows  that  "  dip  "  will  not  answer  in  a  single  case." 

Rev.  J.  W.  Moore,  Austin,  Arkansas. 
"  For  almost  forty  years  I  have  been  in  conflict  with  Baptists  and  Campbellites. 
The  immersionists  made  war  upon  me  on  my  first  arrival  in  '  the  Territory.'  Judge 
from  these  facts  of  my  interest  in  Judaic  Baptism.  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  told 
me  of  an  old  negro  who  looked,  for  the  first  time,  on  a  steamboat  stemming  the 
mighty  current  of  the  Mississippi,  and,  after  gazing  for  some  time  in  mute  astonish- 
ment, exclaimed :  '  Well,  old  ilASSAsippi,  you  have  found  your  match  at  last. '  Your 
book  forcibly  reminds  me  of  this  speech." 

Rev.  J.  H.  Barnard,  Waukesha,  Wisconsin. 
"  I  was  forced  lately  into  a  discussion  of  Baptism.  I  purchased  your  works,  and 
spent  many  days  and  nights  over  them.  They  gave  me  such  a  thorough  insight  into 
the  subject  as  I  never  had  before.  Many  who  were  unsettled  have  come  to  thank 
me  for  the  entirely  satisfactory  view  which  I  had  given  them,  and  I,  in  turn,  thank 
you  for  the  valuable  treatment  of  the  subject  you  have  given  to  the  church  and  the 
world.  I  can,  now,  speak  intelligently  and  with  confidence  on  the  subject.  Some  of 
the  advocates  of  the  theory,  here,  are  completely  demoralized.  Again,  I  thank  you 
for  the  invaluable  aid  received  from  your  two  volumes." 

Congregational  Rk,vikw. 
"Judaic  Baptism  has  the  same  learning  and  skill  that  marked  Classic  Baptism. 
These  two  volumes  must  attract  great  attention.  They  form  a  work  of  great  powej-. 
Dr.  Dale  has  most  etfectively  shown  the  absurdity  of  the  Baptist  position.  It  is,  now, 
a  matter  of  doubt,  whether  they  have  any  position.  He  has  fairly  taken  away  th« 
groui'd,  or  rather  the  water,  from  under  them.      They  are  stranded. 


"  Calm,  self-poised, patient,  master  of  the  situalion." 

"  The  same  clear  discrimination  and  lucid  expression," Prof.  Moffat. 

"Your  services  in  this  inquiry  are  of  the  highest  value,"    ....  Prof.  Shedd. 

"  I  congratulate  you  on  the  success  of  youk  labors," Prop.  B.  M.  Smith. 

"  Learned,  instructive,  exhaustive,  masterly," Prof.  Jewett. 

"Be  amply  rewarded  for  labor  on  the  argument," Albert  Barnes. 

"Great  eesearcii  and  wonderful  originality," So.  Presb.  Review. 

"Great  ability,  originality,  patience,  fairness," Bibliotii.-Sacra. 

PiioFESSoii  James  C.   Moffat,  Piinrrion  Tlieologicul  Seminary.  New  Jersey. 
...  I  have  carefully  read  the  passage  on  pp.  224-2H9,  and  it  spenis  to  me  that  the  secondary  mean- 
ing of  /ia:rri?(j  is  fully  made  out  and  foiribly  presented.     I  find  in  all  that  I  have  read  the  same  clear 
discrimination,  and  lucid  expression,  which  gratified  me  so  much  in  the  former  volume. 

Professor  W.  O.  T.  Siiedd,   Union  Tlteolo'^ical  Seminary ,  New  York. 
Your  services  in  this  department  of  inquiry  I  regard,  a.s  do  others,  of  the  highest  value. 

Professor  (Seorge  B.  Jewett,  Amlierst  College,  Massachusetts. 

You  are  moving  forward  grandly  In  your  work.  The  more  I  study  your  iiooks  the  greater  and 
more  unqualified  becomes  my  admiration  of  them.  It  is  impossible  to  turn  your  main  positions.  Your 
noble  work  is  equally  l(*rued,  instructive,  exhaustive  and  masterly. 

PiEV.  Albert  Barnes,  Pldlailelphia,  Penna. 
I  hope  you  will  be  amply  rewarded  for  the  labor  which  you  liave  bestowed  on  the  argument. 
I  write  this  by  the  aid  of  a  machine,  and  in  the  dark. 

Rev.  II.  L.  Poling,  Pennshoro,  West  Virginia. 

In  two  discussions,  extending  tlirough  several  days,  I  have  made  free  use  of  Classic  and  Judaic 
Baptism.    They  have  proved  themselves  to  be  unanswerable. 

Rev.  J.  G.  D.  Stearxs,  Clc-irwate.r,  Minnesota. 

I  have  read  Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism  with  delight  and  admiration,  and  for  the  first  time  feel 
that  I  understand  the  subject,  although  I  had  previously  read  everything  on  both  sides  that  I  could 
lay  my  bands  on. 

President  Edward  Beeciier,  Galeshnrg,  Illinois. 

...  I  have  read  Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism  with  great  care  and  with  deep  interest.  Some  of  your 
proofs  of  this  secondary  sense  (purification;  have  been  previously  adduced  by  me;  others  I  had 
seen  but  did  not  find  room  to  adduce;  others  still, and  those  of  great  power  and  value,  I  had  not  seeu, 
and  I  feel  much  indebted  to  you  for  producing  them.  .  .  . 

United  Presbyteuian  Review. 
...  A  most  important  contribution  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  will  serve  largely  to  bring  about 
the  proper  mode  of  administering  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  church.  .  .  . 

Theological  Mediu.M  {Quarterly  cf  Cnmberhind  Pre^hiiteriiin  Clitirrh). 
These  are  works  of  the  most  profound  research,  and  in  scholarship  evince  extraordinary  ability. 
Dr.  Dale,  with  rare  acumen,  perfect  courtesy,  and  good-humored  raillery,  traces  jSaTrn'soi  ,  .  .  Every 
position  he  sustains  by  the  careful  citation  of  authorities.  His  purely  classic  style,  freedom  from  ac- 
rimony, and  display  of  conscious  striiigth,  give  him  advantai'C  over  liis  opponents.  These  works  are 
invaluable.    The  results  may  be  used  with  full  coulideuce  aud  with  triumphant  success.  .  .  . 

Southern  Presbyterian  Review. 
The  extraordinary  ability  of  Classic  Baptism  won  I'.ir  its  writer  a  deserved  distinction  among 
philological  scholais,  and  raised  him  to  a  position  of  absolute  pre-eminence  among  the  controversial- 
ists who  had  hitherto  occupied  the  field  of  his  choice.  .  .  .  The  meanings  of  (janru)  and  lia:;Ti^a)  are 
traced  with  rare  skill  and  with  the  acutest  criticism,  with  inferences  perfectly  crushing  to  all  iuimer- 
sionists Judaic  Baptism  erects  a  suporstnuture  of  whieh  Classic  Baptism  is  the  imniovaljle  foun- 
dation ;  for  Dr.  Dale  here  proceeds  upon  the  cla.ssical  usage  of  fjawrisoi,  established  by  his  own  labors, 
in  a  manner  never  before  even  attempted,  to  investigate  by  labors  .equally  great  and  ei|ually  new,  its 
usage  in  Jewishand  Patristic  writings.  Tlie  success  is  complete.  .  .  .  Nothing  can  exceed  the  strength 
of  the  proof  but  the  force  of  the  conclusion. 

l!iiiLioriiErA  Sacra,  Amluvrr.  Massachusetts. 
The  subject  treated  in  tluse  vulumeshas  been  herediscussed  with  more  thoroughness  and  breadth 
of  research  than  have  before  been  brought  to  it  in  this  country.  .  .  .    The  di-scussion  indicates  great 
ability,  originality,  patient  invi'stigation,  fair-mindedness,  clear  discrimination,  and  has  done  invalu- 
able service  to  the  cause  in  whose  defence  it  was  undertaken.  .  .  . 

Octavo,  pp.  400.     Prion,  $3.rjlt ;  (Jlor-^yinen,  $?,M). 

WM.  RUTTER  &  CO.,  Publishers, 

SKVENTH    A.NU    CllKKItV    STKIJETS,     I'lIICADKLl'lJIA. 


yj^^^ 


Princeton   Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01196  8262 


If" 


